MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150616658 · doi:10.1109/cimsvp.2009.4925650

Quality-aware selection of quality factor and scaling parameters in JPEG image transcoding

2009· article· en· W2150616658 on OpenAlex
Stéphane Coulombe, Steven Pigeon

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscodingJPEGComputer scienceMetric (unit)Image qualityQuality (philosophy)ScalingQuantization (signal processing)JPEG 2000Factor (programming language)Selection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceReduction (mathematics)Data miningComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingMathematicsImage compressionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reducing the file size of a JPEG image to meet bandwidth or terminal constraints is a common transcoding operation. The reduction can be achieved by reducing either the quality factor (QF) or the resolution, or both. In this paper, we analyze the impact of QF and scaling parameter choices on the quality of the resulting images, as measured by a quality metric such as the structural similarity index (SSIM). We propose a quality-aware transcoding system which considers the quality of transcoded images when QF and scaling are selected jointly. Its goal is to select QF and scaling parameters that maximize the user experience under a given viewing condition, as measured by the chosen quality metric.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207