MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068677177 · doi:10.1109/pcs.2013.6737750

Low bit-rate image coding via local random down-sampling

2013· article· en· W2068677177 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Pournaghi, Xiaolin Wu, Xianming Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpsamplingComputer scienceDecimationEncoderArtificial intelligenceComputer visionAlgorithmCodecFilter (signal processing)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common practice in low bit-rate image/video compression is uniform spatial down-sampling at the encoder and upsampling at the decoder. The down-sampling is performed in conjunction with deterministic low-pass filtering (e.g., Gaussian or the alike) to prevent aliasing. The down-sampled image is compressed and decompressed as usual; the upsampling is treated as an image restoration problem. In this paper, we show that the rate-distortion performance of the above low bit-rate image coding system can be improved, if the deterministic low-pass down-sampling filter is replaced by a random convolution kernel. The resulting down-sampled image is a two-dimensional array of local random measurements; this smaller image is still compressible in most cases. Accordingly, the decoder recovers the image from these local random measurements in the framework of compressive sensing. Theoretical analysis is conducted to support the superior performance of the proposed new method over its predecessors, and it is corroborated by our simulation results. At low to medium bit rates, the new method outperforms not only JPEG 2000 but also our earlier low bit-rate image codec CADU, with clear advantages over the competing methods in the reconstruction of high frequency features. In addition, the new method retains the system advantages of low encoder complexity and standard compliance as in CADU.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207