MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031971246 · doi:10.1109/isabel.2010.5702863

On the selection of appropriate wavelet filters for visual sensor networks

2010· article· en· W2031971246 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelhamid Mammeri, Brahim Hadjou, Ahmed Khoumsi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletComputer scienceLifting schemeDiscrete wavelet transformArtificial intelligenceWavelet packet decompositionWavelet transformSecond-generation wavelet transformContext (archaeology)Computer visionSelection (genetic algorithm)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the emergence of visual sensor networks (VSN), low power wavelet-based coder (WBC) is becoming increasingly mandatory. This makes the selection of the appropriate wavelet, among many competitors, not an easy task. In our context, the appropriate wavelet is that one which dissipates low energy during image decomposition, while having an adequate quality of the reconstructed image at the reception. In this paper, a comparative study is investigated between different wavelet filters. Two versions of DWT implementation are considered following their emergence: the classical convolutional-based wavelets and the relatively new lifting-based wavelets.

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)0.001
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 score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207