Computation-aware algorithm selection approach for interlaced-to-progressive conversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss deinterlacing results in a computationally constrained and varied environment. The proposed computation-aware algorithm selection approach (CASA) for fast interlaced to progressive conversion algorithm consists of three methods: the line-averaging (LA) method for plain regions, the modified edge-based line-averaging (MELA) method for medium regions, and the proposed covariance-based adaptive deinterlacing (CAD) method for complex regions. The proposed CASA uses two criteria, mean-squared error (MSE) and CPU time, for assigning the method. We proposed a CAD method. The principle idea of CAD is based on the correspondence between the high and low-resolution covariances. We estimated the local covariance coefficients from an interlaced image using Wiener filtering theory and then used these optimal minimum MSE interpolation coefficients to obtain a deinterlaced image. The CAD method, though more robust than most known methods, was not found to be very fast compared to the others. To alleviate this issue, we proposed an adaptive selection approach using a fast deinterlacing algorithm rather than using only one CAD algorithm. The proposed hybrid approach of switching between the conventional schemes (LA and MELA) and our CAD was proposed to reduce the overall computational load. A reliable condition to be used for switching the schemes was presented after a wide set of initial training processes. The results of computer simulations showed that the proposed methods outperformed a number of methods presented in the literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".