An Image Terrain Map Model for Texture Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of texture measurement is to describe and quantify the texture features of pixels in an image. The accuracy of texture measurement plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of texture filtering. However, current texture measurement methods face challenges in achieving accurate texture measurement results, particularly for multi-scale texture measurements. This limitation often leads to unsatisfactory texture filtering results, particularly with image details and high-contrast textures. We find that when moving the texture measurement regions for pixels near texture edges further away from the texture edge and keeping the texture measurement regions for pixels far from texture edges unchanged results in an improved accuracy of texture measurement. Based on this observation, we propose a novel texture measurement approach that employs a circular neighborhood with a variable radius as the texture measurement region for each pixel. Furthermore, we proposed an image terrain map model based on a one-pixel texture edge to obtain optimal parameters for texture measurement regions. This model significantly enhances the accuracy of texture measurement at any scale in an image. The experimental results show that the texture filtering method based on our image terrain map model is significantly better than existing methods in terms of edge-preservation, small-structure preservation, and high-contrast texture filtering. Additionally, we presented some applications of the image terrain map model in other areas of image processing to demonstrate its versatility.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".