MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360989163 · doi:10.18280/ria.370109

Content-Based Image Retrieval Using Adaptive CIE Color Feature Fusion

2023· article· en· W4360989163 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charulata Palai, Pradeep Kumar Jena, Bonomali Khuntia, Tapas Kumar Mishra, Satya Ranjan Pattanaik

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionContent-based image retrievalImage (mathematics)Information retrievalImage retrievalLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work proposes a novel content-based image retrieval framework using adaptive weight feature fusion in the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) color space.To enhance the weights of the saliency region features of an image, an adaptive wrapper model is proposed for the adaptive feature selection.Initially, the images are transferred to the CIE color space, i.e., the L*, a*, b* color space.The local binary model (LBP) texture features of all four channels are analyzed class-wise.For each class, the weights of the LBP features for a* and b* axis are calculated dynamically as per their class variance.The weighted LBP features along a* and b* axis are merged, which is referred to as the LBPCW feature in the CIE color space.To test the performance of the proposed LBPCW feature we developed a CBIR system, here two standard classifiers i.e.Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Naï ve Bayes (NB) is used for classification and Euclidian distance measure is used for image retrieval.The model is tested with two public datasets Wang-1K and Corel-5K.It is observed that our proposed LBPCW feature outperforms LBP and local binary pattern with saliency map (LBPSM) features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207