2010
DOI: 10.5614/itbj.ict.2010.4.2.2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ultrafuzziness Optimization Based on Type II Fuzzy Sets for Image Thresholding

Abstract: Abstract. Image thresholding is one of the processing techniques to provide high quality preprocessed image. Image vagueness and bad illumination are common obstacles yielding in a poor image thresholding output. By assuming image as fuzzy sets, several different fuzzy thresholding techniques have been proposed to remove these obstacles during threshold selection. In this paper, we proposed an algorithm for thresholding image using ultrafuzziness optimization to decrease uncertainty in fuzzy system by common f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
(22 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…where is the area of the ground truth image, and is the area of the results of segmentation. as a comparison of our method, we are doing by comparing comparatively with the previous method, we have inferred Otsu thresholding -method [12], Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) [13], Fuzzy Sets Type II [14], and Multi adaptive thresholding (MAT) [15]. the smaller value of ME and RAE gives the better performance is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 for comparing methods.…”
Section: Comparative Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where is the area of the ground truth image, and is the area of the results of segmentation. as a comparison of our method, we are doing by comparing comparatively with the previous method, we have inferred Otsu thresholding -method [12], Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) [13], Fuzzy Sets Type II [14], and Multi adaptive thresholding (MAT) [15]. the smaller value of ME and RAE gives the better performance is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 for comparing methods.…”
Section: Comparative Studymentioning
confidence: 99%