MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140332897 · doi:10.1364/josaa.24.000b61

Video quality assessment using a statistical model of human visual speed perception

2007· article· en· W2140332897 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

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWeightingVideo qualityPerceptionArtificial intelligenceHuman visual system modelSet (abstract data type)Computer visionQuality (philosophy)Motion (physics)Subjective video qualityVisual perceptionImage qualityImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion is one of the most important types of information contained in natural video, but direct use of motion information in the design of video quality assessment algorithms has not been deeply investigated. Here we propose to incorporate a recent model of human visual speed perception [Nat. Neurosci. 9, 578 (2006)] and model visual perception in an information communication framework. This allows us to estimate both the motion information content and the perceptual uncertainty in video signals. Improved video quality assessment algorithms are obtained by incorporating the model as spatiotemporal weighting factors, where the weight increases with the information content and decreases with the perceptual uncertainty. Consistent improvement over existing video quality assessment algorithms is observed in our validation with the video quality experts group Phase I test data set.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.310 · 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