Mixed Graph Signal Analysis of Joint Image Denoising / Interpolation
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
A noise-corrupted image often requires interpolation. Given a linear denoiser and a linear interpolator, when should the operations be independently executed in separate steps, and when should they be combined and jointly optimized? We study joint denoising / interpolation of images from a mixed graph filtering perspective: we model denoising using an undirected graph, and interpolation using a directed graph. We first prove that, under mild conditions, a linear denoiser is a solution graph filter to a maximum a posteriori (MAP) problem using an undirected graph smoothness prior, while a linear interpolator is a solution to a MAP problem using a directed graph smoothness prior. Next, we study two variants of the joint interpolation / denoising problem: a graph-based denoiser followed by an interpolator has an optimal separable solution, while an interpolator followed by a denoiser has an optimal non-separable solution. Experiments show that our joint denoising / interpolation method outperformed separate approaches noticeably.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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