An overview of intelligent image segmentation using active contour models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The active contour model (ACM) approach in image segmentation is regarded as a research hotspot in the area of computer vision, which is widely applied in different kinds of applications in practice, such as medical image processing. The essence of ACM is to make use ofuse an enclosed and smooth curve to signify the target boundary, which is usually accomplished by minimizing the associated energy function by means ofthrough the standard descent method. This paper presents an overview of ACMs for handling image segmentation problems in various fields. It begins with an introduction briefly reviewing different ACMs with their pros and cons. Then, some basic knowledge in of the theory of ACMs is explained, and several popular ACMs in terms of three categories, including region-based ACMs, edge-based ACMs, and hybrid ACMs, are detailedly reviewed with their advantages and disadvantages. After that, twelve ACMs are chosen from the literature to conduct three sets of segmentation experiments to segment different kinds of images, and compare the segmentation efficiency and accuracy with different methods. Next, two deep learning-based algorithms are implemented to segment different types of images to compare segmentation results with several ACMs. Experimental results confirm some useful conclusions about their sharing strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, this paper points out some promising research directions that need to be further studied in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it