Perceptually Optimized 3-D Transmission Over Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many protocols optimized to transmissions over wireless networks have been proposed. However, one issue that has not been looked into is considering human perception in deciding a transmission strategy for three-dimensional (3D) objects. Several factors, such as the number of vertices and the resolution of texture, can affect the display quality of 3D objects. When the resources of a graphics system are not sufficient to render the ideal image, degradation is inevitable. It is therefore important to study how individual factors affect the overall quality, and how the degradation can be controlled given limited bandwidth resources and possibility of data loss. In this paper, the essential factors determining the display quality are reviewed. We provide an overview of our research on designing a 3D perceptual quality metric integrating two important ones, resolution of texture and resolution of mesh, that control the transmission bandwidth requirements. A review of robust mesh transmission considering packet loss is presented, followed by a discussion of the difference of existing literature with our problem and approach. We then suggest alternative strategies for packet transmission of both 3D texture and mesh. These strategies are then compared with respect to preserving 3D perceptual quality under packet loss
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".