MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101598492 · doi:10.1109/crv.2006.23

Comparison of Super-Resolution Algorithms Using Image Quality Measures

2006· article· en· W2101598492 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceImage qualityMeasure (data warehouse)Image resolutionResolution (logic)Quality (philosophy)AlgorithmSuperresolutionImage scalingPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionImage processingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents comparisons of two learning-based super-resolution algorithms as well as standard interpolation methods. To allow quality assessment of results, a comparison of a variety of image quality measures is also performed. Results show that a MRF-based super-resolution algorithm improves a previously interpolated image. The estimated degree of improvement varies both according to the quality measure chosen for the comparison as well as the image class.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207