Exploring the Distributed Video Coding in a Quality Assessment Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".