MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225523354 · doi:10.3390/jimaging8040110

Salient Object Detection by LTP Texture Characterization on Opposing Color Pairs under SLICO Superpixel Constraint

2022· article· en· W4225523354 on OpenAlexaff
Didier Ndayikengurukiye

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionColor spaceHueRGB color modelPattern recognition (psychology)LuminanceRGB color spaceCyanColor imageMathematicsImage processingImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effortless detection of salient objects by humans has been the subject of research in several fields, including computer vision as it has many applications. However, salient object detection remains a challenge for many computer models dealing with color and textured images. Herein, we propose a novel and efficient strategy, through a simple model, almost without internal parameters, which generates a robust saliency map for a natural image. This strategy consists of integrating color information into local textural patterns to characterize a color micro-texture. Most models in the literature that use the color and texture features treat them separately. In our case, it is the simple, yet powerful LTP (Local Ternary Patterns) texture descriptor applied to opposing color pairs of a color space that allows us to achieve this end. Each color micro-texture is represented by vector whose components are from a superpixel obtained by SLICO (Simple Linear Iterative Clustering with zero parameter) algorithm which is simple, fast and exhibits state-of-the-art boundary adherence. The degree of dissimilarity between each pair of color micro-texture is computed by the FastMap method, a fast version of MDS (Multi-dimensional Scaling), that considers the color micro-textures non-linearity while preserving their distances. These degrees of dissimilarity give us an intermediate saliency map for each RGB, HSL, LUV and CMY color spaces. The final saliency map is their combination to take advantage of the strength of each of them. The MAE (Mean Absolute Error) and F$_{\beta}$ measures of our saliency maps, on the complex ECSSD dataset show that our model is both simple and efficient, outperforming several state-of-the-art models.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207