MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087514446 · doi:10.5923/j.ajsp.20110101.04

Exploring the Distributed Video Coding in a Quality Assessment Context

2012· article· en· W2087514446 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Banitalebi, Hamid Reza Tohidypour

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Signal Processing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMotion compensationDistributed source codingEncoderCoding (social sciences)Data compressionVideo qualityArtificial intelligenceDecoding methodsMotion estimationComputer visionReference frameAlgorithmVariable-length codeMathematicsFrame (networking)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the popular video coding trend, the encoder has the task to exploit both spatial and temporal redundancies present in the video sequence, which is a complex procedure; As a result almost all video encoders have five to ten times more complexity than their decoders. In a video compression process, one of the main tasks at the encoder side is motion estimation which is to extract the temporal correlation between frames. Distributed video coding (DVC) proposed the idea that can lead to low complexity encoders and higher complexity decoders. DVC is a new paradigm in video compression based on the information theoretic ideas of Slepian-Wolf and Wyner-Ziv theorems. Wyner-Ziv coding is naturally robust against transmission errors and can be used for joint source and channel coding. Side Information is one of the key components of the Wyner-Ziv decoder. Better side information generation will result in better functionality of Wyner-Ziv coder. In this paper we proposed a new method that can generate side information with a better quality and thus better compression. We’ve used HVS (human visual system) based image quality metrics as our quality criterion. The motion estimation we’ve used in the decoder is modified due to these metrics such that we could obtain finer side information. The motion compensation is optimized for perceptual quality metrics and leads to better side information generation compared to conventional MSE (mean squared error) or SAD (sum of absolute difference) based motion compensation currently used in the literature. Better motion compensation means better compression.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Signal ProcessingSame topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207