MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385151536 · doi:10.1109/tim.2023.3295026

Computational Framework for Turbid Water Single-Pixel Imaging by Polynomial Regression and Feature Enhancement

2023· article· en· W4385151536 on OpenAlexaff
Mengchao Ma, L. Z. GU, Yinran Shen, Qingtian Guan, Chen Wang, Huaxia Deng, Xiang Zhong, Min Xia, Dongfeng Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Enhancement Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Anhui ProvinceChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsUnderwaterComputer sciencePixelArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Image qualityComputer visionRemote sensingTurbidityImage (mathematics)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of underwater imaging is greatly impacted by the scattering and absorption of light in turbid water environments. Single pixel imaging (SPI) has emerged as a promising solution for turbid underwater imaging, as it effectively suppresses the effects of scattering and is cost-effective due to the use of a single photodetector. However, the quality of SPI in highly turbid water is still unsatisfactory. To address this issue, we propose a novel computational framework for turbid water single-pixel imaging. The framework involves a machine learning-based polynomial regression fitting method, followed by data feature enhancement in the spectrum domain to obtain the rectified data, and ultimately, high-contrast image recovery. Furthermore, we propose a new metric, Edge Detection-based Enhancement Measure Evaluation (EDEME), to quantitatively evaluate the contrast of the recovered images. Our experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can recover images in low turbidity water to a level comparable to clear water, and even in highly turbid water (turbidity greater than 50 NTU), the recovered images are legible with significantly improved EDEME values. Additionally, our method exhibits wide adaptability, requires minimal data operations, and outperforms some post-image processing methods. This work has significant implications for imaging, inspections, search and rescue, resource exploitation, and other applications in underwater environments.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicImage Enhancement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207