MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131813700 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1996.548130

Image denoising for reduced-search fractal block coding

2002· article· en· W2131813700 on OpenAlexaff
Sandeep Bal, Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-local meansArtificial intelligenceSmoothingNoise reductionWaveletLossy compressionWavelet transformMathematicsComputer visionImage compressionFractal transformPeak signal-to-noise ratioPattern recognition (psychology)Entropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceImage processingImage denoisingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the process of image denoising to improve the efficiency of the reduced-search fractal block coding (FBC) of greyscale images by reducing the first-order entropy of the image. The reduced-search FBC is a lossy compression technique that exploits the block-wise self-affinity of an image where portions of the image are represented by scaled and isometrically transformed copies of other portions of the image. The efficiency of this process increases with increased redundancy which is the result of lowering the entropy. Image denoising is concerned with separating noise from an image and then suppressing the noise as much as possible without altering the image itself. In this paper spatial smoothing and wavelet denoising are compared. It is shown that denoising increases the efficiency of reduced-search FBC. Spatial smoothing, however, causes a loss of signal that wavelet denoising does not. In either case, the reconstruction qualities of the peak-signal-to-noise ratio at approximately 34 dB and compression ratios of 18.9:1 and higher have been achieved. This is an improvement over the 31 dB and 18.1:1 for non-denoised images.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207