Validation of image processing steps and metric results using images of a microfluidic device. by Gavrielle R. Untracht (11820311)

<i>hi</i>PRS algorithm process flow. by Michela C. Massi (14599915)

“…From this dataset we can compute the MI between each interaction and the outcome and <b>(D)</b> obtain a ranked list (<i>I</i>_<i>δ</i>) based on this metric. <b>(E)</b> Starting from the interaction at the top of <i>I</i>_<i>δ</i>, <i>hi</i>PRS constructs <i>I</i>_<i>K</i>, selecting <i>K</i> (where <i>K</i> is user-specified) terms through the greedy optimization of the ratio between MI (<i>relevance</i>) and a suitable measure of similarity for interactions (<i>redundancy)</i> (cf. …”

tUbenet Foundation Model Weights by Natalie Holroyd (7099391)

Flowchart of software workflow. by Gavrielle R. Untracht (11820311)

Improved support vector machine classification algorithm based on adaptive feature weight updating in the Hadoop cluster environment by Jianfang Cao (1881379)

“…The MapReduce parallel programming model on the Hadoop platform is used to perform an adaptive fusion of hue, local binary pattern (LBP) and scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) features extracted from images to derive optimal combinations of weights. …”

Experimental observation of gastruloids and shape quantification using LOCO-EFA. by Martijn A. de Jong (17896732)

Fig 3 - by Ali Ahmed (2567584)

Sample image for illustration. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Quadratic polynomial in 2D image plane. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Steps in the extraction of 14 coordinates from the CT slices for the curved MPR. by Linus Woitke (22783534)

“…The image is then cleaned in c) using morphological filtering with an <i>opening</i> operation to remove small-scale noise. …”

Image1_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Image3_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Image2_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Comparison analysis of computation time. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Process flow diagram of CBFD. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Precision recall curve. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Symmetry test result. by Jiyong Moon (16819302)

Data_Sheet_1_Multiclass Classification Based on Combined Motor Imageries.pdf by Cecilia Lindig-León (7889777)

“…And we propose two new multilabel uses of the Common Spatial Pattern (CSP) algorithm to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio, namely MC2CMI and MC2SMI approaches. …”

Flow diagram of the automatic animal detection and background reconstruction. by David Tadres (9120564)

“…If the identical blob that was detected in panel J (bottom) is found in any of the new subtracted binary images (cyan arrow), the animal is considered as having left its original position, and the algorithm continues. …”

Seed mix selection model by Bethanne Bruninga-Socolar (10923639)

“…The model thus requires three types of data presented as matrices in order to calculate the maximum number of bee species supported by a given seed mix: 1) adult phenology of each bee species, where each cell represents whether or not that bee species was observed in the data during a given time period, 2) flowering phenology of plants, where each cell represents whether or not a bee was collected from that plant species during a given time period, and 3) pairwise interactions between plant species and bee species, where each cell represents whether each plant-bee species pair was observed interacting in the data.</p> <p>  </p> <p>We applied the seed mix selection model using a binary genetic algorithm to select seed mixes (R package ‘GA’; Scrucca 2013; Scrucca 2017). …”