MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083983191 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2006.876849

A Low-Complexity Method for Fixed-Rate Entropy-Constrained Vector Quantization

2006· article· en· W2083983191 on OpenAlexaff
S. Nikneshan, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLagrange multiplierVector quantizationMathematicsMathematical optimizationQuantization (signal processing)AlgorithmConstraint algorithmEntropy (arrow of time)Iterative method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a new approach to fixed-rate entropy-constrained vector quantization (FEVQ) for stationary memoryless sources where the structure of codewords are derived from a variable-length scalar quantizer. We formulate the quantization search operation as a zero-one integer-optimization problem, and show that the resulting integer program can be closely approximated by solving a simple linear program. The result is a Lagrange formulation which adjoins the constraint on the entropy (codeword length) to the distortion. Unlike the previously known methods with a fixed Lagrange multiplier, we use an iterative algorithm to optimize the underlying objective function, while updating the Lagrange multiplier until the constraint on the overall rate is satisfied. The key feature of the new method is the substantial reduction in the number of iterations in comparison with previous related methods. In order to achieve some packing gain, we combine the process of trellis-coded quantization with that of FEVQ. This results in an iterative application of the Viterbi algorithm on the underlying trellis for selecting the Lagrange multiplier. Numerical results are presented which demonstrate substantial improvement in comparison with the alternative methods reported in the literature

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207