MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169708058 · doi:10.1109/ita.2009.5044930

Rate distortion bounds for blocking and intra-frame prediction in videos

2009· article· en· W2169708058 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Hu, Jerry D. Gibson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Coding and Compression Technologies
Canadian institutionsCisco Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRate–distortion theoryAlgorithmDistortion (music)Coding (social sciences)CorrelationSpatial correlationComputer scienceRate–distortion optimizationMathematicsCorrelation coefficientData compressionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsBandwidth (computing)Block-matching algorithmVideo processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently we proposed a block-based conditional correlation coefficient model for natural videos in the spatial-temporal domain. The conditioning is on local texture and the optimal parameters can be calculated for a specific video with a mean absolute error (MAE) usually smaller than 5%. We used this conditional correlation model and the classic results on conditional rate distortion functions to calculate new theoretical rate distortion bounds for videos which appear to be the only valid theoretical rate distortion bounds with regard to the current cutting-edge video compression technologies such as those standardized in AVC/H.264. In this paper, we focus on utilizing the new block-based local-texture-dependent correlation model to derive rate distortion bounds for blocking and optimal prediction across neighboring blocks. We study the penalty paid in average rate when the correlation among the neighboring blocks is discarded completely or is incorporated partially through predictive coding. We calculate the thresholds in average rate and distortion when incorporating the correlation among the neighboring blocks through optimal predictive coding becomes worse than completely discarding this correlation. We also discuss the role of local texture in inter-frame prediction.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Coding and Compression TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207