MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148772309 · doi:10.1109/bmsb.2011.5954892

Reduced reference image quality assessment using Principal Component Analysis

2011· article· en· W2148772309 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Uzair, D. Fayek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePrincipal component analysisMetric (unit)Video qualityImage qualityContext (archaeology)Data miningArtificial intelligenceSobel operatorSubjective video qualityComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingEdge detection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the tendency of converging services delivered on wired and wireless networks, the consumer expectancy includes live video streaming. In this context, the objective image and video quality assessment becomes an essential but a challenging requirement. With the rapid evolution of the wireless video applications, the continuation of the Quality of Service (QoS) is a key paradigm for the roll-out of these services, which demands for an efficient quality evaluator for the dynamic monitoring and parameter setting of the digital video system. In this paper, we propose a Reduced-Reference (RR) image quality assessment metric based on the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). In our metric, the transformed data set is obtained which represents the original data solely in terms of the eigenvectors we choose, giving us the most efficient expression of the data. The mean gradient values are calculated from the transformed data using edge detection methods based on the Sobel-operator. We define a Quality Index that measures the difference between our metric's values computed on the transmitted and received images, respectively. The experimental results show that our RR-PCA proposed metric correlates well with the subjective quality scores.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207