MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874545624 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2000.849746

Psychovisual correlations with multifractal measures for wavelet and wavelet packet progressive image transmission

2002· article· en· W1874545624 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Dansereau, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletMultifractal systemImage qualityArtificial intelligenceMathematicsWavelet transformPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceComputer visionTransmission (telecommunications)Metric (unit)Image (mathematics)FractalTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to develop a quantitative measure for image quality, this paper looks for psychovisual correlations of image quality to multifractal measures. Image metrics such as peak signal-to-noise ratio are not well suited as perceptual indicators and other techniques are primarily limited to just noticeable differences which limit their use in general. It is desirable to have image quality metrics for progressive image transmission that are more general and can evaluate images produced during a progressive image transmission, from the worst image reconstruction step all the way to the final perfect image. We focus on how the Renyi (1955) dimension spectrum changes as more wavelet and wavelet packet coefficients are included in a progressive image transmission. Mean opinion score (MOS) results serve as an additional basis for analyzing how the progressive image transmission affect the Renyi dimension spectrum. While this paper does not give a final answer to what the best metric would be for image quality in a progressive image transmission, it does attempt to link perceptual quality with multifractal measures.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207