MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169679846 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1999.808078

Error concealment methods, a comparative study

2003· article· en· W2169679846 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Coding and Compression Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceError concealmentImage (mathematics)Block (permutation group theory)A priori and a posterioriTransmission (telecommunications)PixelArtificial intelligenceImage restorationData lossComputer visionError detection and correctionData compressionAlgorithmImage processingDecoding methodsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A serious problem that arises in transmission of compressed image and video data over band-limited channels is due to the fact that the encoded bit stream is vulnerable to transmission errors. This may cause the loss of blocks of data. Error concealment methods intend to conceal the effects of data block loss by restoring the lost information. Restoration of lost pixels in an image or video is known to be an ill-posed problem. Error concealment methods solve this problem by introducing assumptions. Different researchers have made different assumptions about the image and video signals. Depending on these assumptions or how they are interpreted, different concealment methods have been proposed. In this paper, we report on the different error concealment methods suggested in the literature and compare their a-priori assumptions, performances and complexities.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Coding and Compression TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207