MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102091835 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1995.528099

An adaptive fractal-based algorithm for image compression

2002· article· en· W2102091835 on OpenAlexaff
Branka Dzerdz, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractal compressionIterated function systemAlgorithmFractal transformFractalImage compressionCompression ratioImage (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)Compression (physics)Iterated functionData compressionComputer scienceQuadtreeMathematicsFunction (biology)PixelImage processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of fractal theory in the area of image compression is a relatively new and intriguing concept. Its theoretical basis is well established in the theory of iterated function systems, and particularly in partitioned iterated function systems. However, there are still numerous questions about its practical implementation to be answered. The main problem with this method is that of reducing the complexity of an otherwise very promising concept. We describe a simple and efficient adaptive fractal-based algorithm for image compression. The algorithm uses horizontal-vertical (HV) partitioning of an image into rectangular blocks of different sizes. The partitioning information is used in the encoding process for determining both the range and the domain image blocks. Neither the ranges nor the domains are determined in advance. Instead, the image is fully partitioned into small areas not larger than some predetermined size. The ranges and the corresponding domains are then determined in an adaptive manner, by comparing the rectangular image blocks with different scales. The proposed algorithm attempts to find a good cover for the ranges as large as possible and it then proceeds toward smaller ranges only if an optimal cover is not found with the larger scale. The method allows the total number of finally chosen ranges to be reduced, which is an essential requirement for achieving high compression ratios. The proposed algorithm gives roughly one-half the number of ranges compared to that given by the quad-tree based partitions yielding significant improvement in the compression ratio.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207