Balanced incomplete designs for 3D perceptual quality estimation
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
Many 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 resources. The essential factors determining the display quality are reviewed and a 3D perceptual estimation method is described. One of the major concerns in designing perceptual experiments is the large number of evaluations to be performed by judges, which results in fatigue and errors in judgement. To reduce judging fatigue and increase reliability of evaluations we propose using a statistical approach, following the design of experiments technique of balanced incomplete block design (BIBD). We develop models following BIBD for perceptual experiments and validate our model with experimental results. Even though the BIBD framework for perceptual evaluations is described in the context of 3D quality estimation, the approach can be used in other perceptual evaluation scenarios as well.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it