Efficient Architectures for 1-D and 2-D Lifting-Based Wavelet Transforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lifting scheme reduces the computational complexity of the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) by factoring the wavelet filters into cascades of simple lifting steps that process the input samples in pairs. We propose four compact and efficient hardware architectures for implementing lifting-based DWTs, namely, one-dimensional (1-D) and two-dimensional (2-D) versions of what we call recursive and dual scan architectures. The 1-D recursive architecture exploits interdependencies among the wavelet coefficients by interleaving, on alternate clock cycles using the same datapath hardware, the calculation of higher order coefficients along with that of the first-stage coefficients. The resulting hardware utilization exceeds 90% in the typical case of a five-stage 1-D DWT operating on 1024 samples. The 1-D dual scan architecture achieves 100% datapath hardware utilization by processing two independent data streams together using shared functional blocks. The recursive and dual scan architectures can be readily extended to the 2-D case. The 2-D recursive architecture is roughly 25% faster than conventional implementations, and it requires a buffer that stores only a few rows of the data array instead of a fixed fraction (typically 25% or more) of the entire array. The 2-D dual scan architecture processes the column and row transforms simultaneously, and the memory buffer size is comparable to existing architectures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".