MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173044382 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2015.7334808

Bit allocation for lossy image set compression

2015· article· en· W2173044382 on OpenAlexafffund
Howard Cheng, Camara Lerner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLossy compressionRedundancy (engineering)Image compressionComputer scienceENCODEArtificial intelligenceImage qualityData compressionResidualComputer visionImage (mathematics)Distortion (music)Set partitioning in hierarchical treesImage processingPattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large sets of similar images are produced in many applications. To store these images more efficiently, redundancy among similar images need to be exploited. A number of methods have been proposed to reduce such inter-image redundancy in lossy image set compression. These methods encode each image either using a conventional image compression algorithm, or predicts the image from a similar image already encoded and encode the prediction residual. Although these methods differ in the way they determine the prediction structure in the image set, they do not consider the effect of bit allocation on the overall quality of the reconstructed images. In this paper, we show that Lagrangian optimization can be used to determine bit allocation for each encoded image in order to improve the overall quality of the reconstructed image set. Furthermore, a model approximating rate-distortion curves of the residual images can be used to reduce the encoding time significantly.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207