Characterizing perceptual artifacts in compressed video streams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve optimal video quality under bandwidth and power constraints, modern video coding techniques employ lossy coding schemes, which often create compression artifacts that may lead to degradation of perceptual video quality. Understanding and quantifying such perceptual artifacts play important roles in the development of effective video compression, streaming and quality enhancement systems. Moreover, the characteristics of compression artifacts evolve over time due to the continuous adoption of novel coding structures and strategies during the development of new video compression standards. In this paper, we reexamine the perceptual artifacts created by standard video compression, summarizing commonly observed spatial and temporal perceptual distortions in compressed video, with emphasis on the perceptual temporal artifacts that have not been well identified or accounted for in previous studies. Furthermore, a floating effect detection method is proposed that not only detects the existence of floating, but also segments the spatial regions where floating occurs∗.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it