MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036939231 · doi:10.1145/2229087.2229101

Collaborative view synthesis for interactive multi-view video streaming

2012· article· en· W2036939231 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Chen, Jiangchuan Liu, Edith C.‐H. Ngai, Yuan Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsView synthesisComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)ScalabilityComputer visionViewpointsArtificial intelligencePixelComputationComputer graphics (images)MultimediaAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive multi-view video enables users to enjoy the video from different viewpoints. Yet multi-view dramatically in-creases the video data volume and their computation, mak-ing realtime transmission and interactions a challenging task. It therefore calls for efficient view synthesis strategies that flexibly generate visual views. In this paper, we present a collaborative view synthesis strategy for online interactive multi-view video streaming based on Depth-Image Based Rendering (DIBR) view synthesis technology, which gener-ates a visual view with the texture and depth information on both sides. Different from the traditional DIBR algorithm for single view synthesis, we explore the collaboration rela-tionship between different viewpoints synthesis for a range of visual views generation, and propose Shift DIBR (S-DIBR). In S-DIBR, only the projected pixels, rather than all the pixels of the reference view, are utilized for next visual view generation. Therefore, the computation complexity of pro-jection transform, which is the most computation intensive process in the traditional DIBR algorithm, is reduced to fulfill the requirement of online interactive streaming. Ex-periment results validate the efficiency of our collaborative view synthesis strategy, as well as the bandwidth scalability of the streaming system.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207