Inverse Problems and Self-similarity in Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the concept of image self-similarity and provides solutions to various associated inverse problems such as resolution enhancement and missing fractal codes. \n \nIn general, many real-world inverse problems are ill-posed, mainly because of the lack of existence of a unique solution. The procedure of providing acceptable unique solutions to such problems is known as regularization. The concept of image prior, which has been of crucial importance in image modelling and processing, has also been important in solving inverse problems since it algebraically translates to the regularization procedure. \n \nIndeed, much recent progress in imaging has been due to advances in the formulation and practice of regularization. This, coupled with progress in optimization and numerical analysis, has yielded much improvement in computational methods of solving inverse imaging problems. \n \nHistorically, the idea of self-similarity was important in the development of fractal image coding. Here we show that the self-similarity properties of natural images may be used to construct image priors for the purpose of addressing certain inverse problems. Indeed, new trends in the area of non-local image processing have provided a rejuvenated appreciation of image self-similarity and opportunities to explore novel self-similarity-based priors. \n \nWe first revisit the concept of fractal-based methods and address some open theoretical problems in the area. This includes formulating a necessary and sufficient condition for the contractivity of the block fractal transform operator. We shall also provide some more generalized formulations of fractal-based self-similarity constraints of an image. These formulations can be developed algebraically and also in terms of the set-based method of Projection Onto Convex Sets (POCS). \n \nWe then revisit the traditional inverse problems of single frame image zooming and multi-frame resolution enhancement, also known as super-resolution. Some ideas will be borrowed from newly developed non-local denoising algorithms in order to formulate self-similarity priors. Understanding the role of scale and choice of examples/samples is also important in these proposed models. For this purpose, we perform an extensive series of numerical experiments and analyze the results. These ideas naturally lead to the method of self-examples, which relies on the regularity properties of natural images at different scales, as a means of solving the single-frame image zooming problem. \n \nFurthermore, we propose and investigate a multi-frame super-resolution counterpart which does not require explicit motion estimation among video sequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".