MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163649293 · doi:10.1109/dcc.2008.81

Can Lower Resolution Be Better?

2008· article· en· W2163649293 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangjun Zhang, Xiaolin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueDCC · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOversamplingLossy compressionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSampling (signal processing)JPEGImage compressionImage resolutionImage qualityRate–distortion theoryJPEG 2000Nyquist rateData compressionFilter (signal processing)Image processingImage (mathematics)Bandwidth (computing)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, many researchers started to question a long-standing paradox in the engineering practice of digital photography: oversampling followed by compression, and pursue more intelligent sparse sampling techniques. In this research we take a practical approach of uniform down sampling in image space, and the sampling is made adaptive by a spatially varying directional low-pass prefiltering. Since the down-sampled prefiltered image is a low-resolution image of conventional square sample grid, it can be compressed and transmitted without any change to current image coding standards and systems. The decoder first decompresses the low-resolution image and then upsamples it to the original resolution by least-square estimation using a 2D piecewise autoregressive model and the knowledge of directional low-pass filter. The proposed joint adaptive down-sampling and up-sampling technique outperforms JPEG 2000 (the state-of-the-art in lossy image coding) in PSNR measure at low to modest bit rates and achieves superior visual quality at all bit rates. This work shows that oversampling not only increases cost and energy consumption, but it could, even when coupled with a sophisticated rate-distortion optimized compression scheme, cause inferior image quality at certain bit rates.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDCCSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207