MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085758610 · doi:10.1117/12.2043128

Characterizing perceptual artifacts in compressed video streams

2014· article· en· W2085758610 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Zeng, Tiesong Zhao, Abdul Rehman, Zhou Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCompression artifactLossy compressionVideo compression picture typesData compressionCoding (social sciences)PerceptionMultiview Video CodingMotion compensationComputer visionVideo processingVideo trackingVideo qualityArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingImage compressionImage processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207