MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385065851 · doi:10.34133/icomputing.0050

Direct Noise-Resistant Edge Detection with Edge-Sensitive Single-Pixel Imaging Modulation

2023· article· en· W4385065851 on OpenAlexaff
Mengchao Ma, Wenbo Liang, Xiang Zhong, Huaxia Deng, Dongfeng Shi, Yingjian Wang, Min Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueIntelligent Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceEdge detectionComputer scienceNoise (video)PixelComputer visionEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionInterference (communication)Modulation (music)Edge enhancementGhost imagingImage processingPhysicsImage (mathematics)Channel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of edge detection methods are applied after the capture of object photos. Thus, edge detection quality suffers when disturbances occur during imaging. This work proposes an effective edge detection technique for single-pixel imaging (SI). A sequence of edge-sensitive single-pixel imaging (ESI) and single-round edge-sensitive single-pixel imaging (SESI) modulation patterns is specially designed to extract the edges of unknown objects directly without the need for any previous images. The modulation patterns are formed by convolving the SI basis patterns with a second-order differential operator. Compared with existing published edge detection methods, experimental results revealed that the proposed SESI increased the signal-to-noise ratio by at least 228%, thereby reducing the edge detection time by at least half. The edge detection performance of the SESI scheme was also demonstrated on moving objects, with SESI detecting clear edges even when the target was in motion. Moreover, unlike traditional methods, ESI and SESI are immune to light interference and can detect clear edges of objects even if the objects are corrupted by severe interference from laser or light-emitting diode light sources, whereas traditional methods exhibit substantial noise contamination. Consequently, ESI and SESI can lay the groundwork for fast and robust edge detection operations without imaging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntelligent ComputingSame topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207