MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111028227 · doi:10.18280/ts.370502

Image Fusion of Noisy Images Based on Simultaneous Empirical Wavelet Transform

2020· article· en· W3111028227 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage fusionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionThresholdingComputer scienceNoise (video)Noise reductionImage processingImage (mathematics)Wavelet transformFusionTop-hat transformPattern recognition (psychology)WaveletDigital image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fusion image is the method of extracting the relevant information from two or more identical input images into one scene and creating a new image. This method allows the new image to provide comprehensive information about the wand, leading to a visual understanding of the human being. Fusion image application in image processing is an important issue. Applications in many fields such as photography, microscopy, astronomy, medical imaging, satellite imagery, machine vision, biology are monitored. In this study first, an image fusion method, suggested recently based on transform empirical wavelet, was implemented in which coefficients were obtained by processing the input images. Then they were combined by applying the rules. The aim of this study is to investigate the noise effect and to remove the noise in the aforementioned suggested method. First, the noise was added to the images, and the images were decomposed into layers or coefficients. Second, by thresholding the coefficients, the noise was removed. Then the coefficients were combined based on the rules to obtain the final coefficients. In the end, the final coefficients were used to obtain the fused image. The results show that the noise removal of images during image fusion is much better and more effective than denoising before image fusion, and the demonstration of the method is proved by obtaining better results in comparison to some existing methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it