MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232518276 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662446

Texture classification using gene expression programming

2021· preprint· en· W4232518276 on OpenAlexaff
Fereshteh Mahvarsayyad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceImage texturePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceSegmentationImage segmentationComputer visionPixelDigital imageImage processingContextual image classificationScale-space segmentationFeature extractionTexture (cosmology)Digital image processingImage (mathematics)Feature (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In computer vision, segmentation refers to the process of subdividing a digital image into constituent regions with homogeneity in some image characteristics. Image segmentation is considered as a pre-processing step for object recognition. The problem of segmentation, being one of the most difficult tasks in image processing, gets more complicated in the presence of random textures in the image. This paper focuses on texture classification, which is defined as supervised texture segmentation with prior knowledge of textures in the image. We investigate a classification method using Gene Expression Programming (GEP). It is shown that GEP is capable of evolving accurate classifiers using simple arithmetic operations and direct pixel values without employing complicated feature extraction algorithms. It is also shown that the accuracy of classification is related to the fact that GEP can detect the regularities of texture patterns. As part of this project, we implemented a Photoshop plug-in that uses the evolved classifiers to identify and select target textures in digital images.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207