Perceptual Analysis of Level-of-Detail: The JND Approach
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
Multimedia content is becoming more widely used in applications resulting from the easy accessibility of high-speed networks in the public domain. An important component in multimedia content is 3D geometry, which in the past had low resolution due to acquisition, computational and network limitation, and was not able to approximate 3D surfaces realistically. Although processing speed and network capacity have been greatly increased in the last decade, the increase in demands for multimedia content surpass the increase in resources. Consequently, techniques for data simplification especially for 3D mesh data is inevitable in order to achieve shorter latency and satisfactory interactivity in applications. This paper presents a perceptual analysis to evaluate the visual quality associated with a change in level-of-detail. Our analysis is consistent to how the human visual system evaluates 3D objects in the real world and is based on the just-noticeable-difference methodology. Experimental results show that our approach presents an accurate estimation of visual quality and thus provides a systematic method to evaluate the performance of different simplification algorithms
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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