MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244725385 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2004.1334394

Fast robust GA-based ellipse detection

2004· article· en· W4244725385 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Yao, N. Kharma, P. Grogono

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllipseArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHough transformPattern recognition (psychology)Genetic algorithmNoise (video)Cluster analysisComputer visionPopulationAlgorithmImage (mathematics)MathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses a novel and effective technique for extracting multiple ellipses from an image, using a multi-population genetic algorithm (MPGA). MPGA evolves a number of subpopulations in parallel, each of which is clustered around an actual or perceived ellipse. It utilizes both evolution and clustering to direct the search for ellipses - full or partial. MPGA is explained in detail, and compared with both the widely used randomized Hough transform (RHT) and the sharing genetic algorithm (SGA). In thorough and fair experimental tests, utilizing both synthetic and real-world images, MPGA exhibits solid advantages over RHT and SGA in terms of accuracy of recognition - even in the presence of noise or/and multiple imperfect ellipses, as well as speed of computation.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004.Same topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207