New method for detecting and removing random-valued impulse noise from images
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 paper proposes a method for detecting and removing impulse noise in images, which determines the similarity between pixels by distance and the difference in brightness values in the local detector window. An impulse noise model is considered, where distorted pixels take random values and also randomly appear in the image. Pixels identified as pulses are recovered with an adaptive median filter. The impulses are determined in the detector window, whose size is calculated in the Euclidean metric and increases with increasing noise intensity in the image. In the experimental part, we discuss visual differences between familiar methods and the one proposed herein on three images for three different impulse noise intensities. In the approximation of image fragments, it is seen that the proposed method copes with the task in the best way, which is also confirmed by numerical estimates of the quality of image reconstruction from impulse noise based on the peak signal-to-noise ratio and the structural similarity index. The proposed method can be used when solving problems of cleaning images under conditions of distorting impulses and for eliminating distortions caused by adverse weather effects, such as raindrops and snow.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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