MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997913214 · doi:10.1145/1283900.1283918

Compressed lossless texture representation and caching

2006· article· en· W1997913214 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLossy compressionLossless compressionTexture compressionComputer scienceData compressionImage compressionData compression ratioContext-adaptive binary arithmetic codingAlgorithmRandom accessArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTheoretical computer scienceImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of texture compression algorithms have been proposed to reduce texture storage size and bandwidth requirements. To deal with the requirement for random access, these algorithms usually divide the texture into tiles and apply a fixed rate compression scheme to each tile. Fixed rate schemes are by nature lossy, and cannot adapt to local changes in image complexity. Multiresolution schemes, a form of variable-rate coding, can adapt to varying image complexity but suffer from fragmentation and can only compress a limited class of images. On the other hand, several lossless image compression standards have been established. Lossless compression requires variable-rate coding, and more efficient lossy algorithms also use variable-rate coding. Unfortunately, these standards cannot be used directly as texture compression schemes since they do not allow random access.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207