MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976603814 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2012.6489374

2D signal compression via parallel compressed sensing with permutations

2012· article· en· W1976603814 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Fang, Sergiy A. Vorobyov, Hai Jiang, Omid Taheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermutation (music)Compression ratioZigzagAlgorithmComputer scienceVectorization (mathematics)SIGNAL (programming language)Compression (physics)Data compressionCompressed sensingMatrix (chemical analysis)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Upper and lower boundsBlock (permutation group theory)Signal compressionMathematicsParallel computingComputer visionCombinatoricsImage (mathematics)Image processingTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new scheme to compress 2D signals using parallel compressed sensing. According to this scheme, the reconstruction at the decoder can be performed in parallel. By performing certain permutation on a 2D signal, all columns are insured to have approximately the same density level and can be sampled using the same measurement matrix. In this way, vectorization of a 2D signal can be avoided, and thus the size of the measurement matrix can be dramatically reduced. We prove that with a good permutation, we can have a tighter upper bound on reconstruction mean square error. To illustrate this scheme, we apply it to video compression and use two kinds of permutations for different frames: the zigzag-scan-based permutation for reference frames and the block-test-based permutation for non-reference frames. Simulation results show that under the same compression ratio, the peak signal-to-noise ratio can be improved by approximately 3-7 dB compared to the case without permutation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207