MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402306730 · doi:10.18280/ts.410424

Content-Based Image Retrieval Using Composite Feature Vectors with Edge Features Based on Color and Pixel Similarity

2024· article· en· W4402306730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah Orman

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Feature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)PixelImage (mathematics)Computer visionEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionComputer scienceContent-based image retrievalImage retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Content-based image retrieval involves searching for the desired image from an image database.It is realized using feature vectors obtained from the architectural image in question.Therefore, feature extraction is a crucial step.In this study, a novel feature vector representation method is proposed.In the proposed method, a composite feature vector is obtained by using color, edge, and gradient features.The most basic feature of the proposed method is that it uses the automatic pixel similarity approach for edge detection.The automatic pixel similarity approach offers a non-linear approach similar to the human visual system.Moreover, there is no need for any parameter or user intervention in edge detection.Additionally, the computational cost is much lower than those in many iterative non-linear edge detection approaches.In the study, experiments are carried out in the Corel-1K and Corel-10K databases, which are frequently used in image retrieval.The results of the proposed method are compared to those of 13 different methods.The superior performance of the proposed method is demonstrated.The high performance and low computational cost of the proposed method show that it can be easily implemented in many real-time image retrieval systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207