MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148394993 · doi:10.18280/mmep.080114

Content-Based Image Retrieval System Based on Fusion of Wavelet Transform, Texture and Shape Features

2021· article· en· W3148394993 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Kishore, Chanamallu Srinivasa Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage retrievalArtificial intelligenceContent-based image retrievalPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceWavelet transformPrecision and recallDiscrete wavelet transformFeature (linguistics)Visual WordLocal binary patternsImage textureWaveletFeature vectorComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingHistogram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last few years, Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) has received wide attention. Compared to text-based image retrieval contents of the image are more in information for efficient retrieval by Content-Based Image Retrieval. The single feature cannot be applied to all the images and provides lower performance. In this paper, we have put forward a proposal on an image retrieval using multi-feature fusion. The concept of multi-resolution has been exploited with the help of a wavelet transform. This method combines Local Binary Pattern (LBP) with Fast and Accurate Exponent Fourier Moments (FAEFM’s) with the wavelet decomposition of an image using multiple resolutions. In order to extract the feature of texture from image, LBP codes of Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT), the image coefficients are estimated followed by the computation of Fast and Accurate Exponent Fourier Moments to these LBP codes so as to extract features of shape to construct the required feature vector. These constructed vectors aid us in exactly finding out and retrieving visually similar images from existing databases. The benchmark databases Corel-1k and Olivia 2688 are used to test the proposed method. The proposed method achieves 99.99% of precision and 93.15% of recall on Corel-1k database and 99.99% of precision and recall of 93.63% on Olivia-2688 database, which are higher than the 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207