MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951254135 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.05110

A Study on the Relationship Between Depth Map Quality and the Overall 3D Video Quality OF Experience

2018· preprint· en· W2951254135 on OpenAlexafffund
Amin Banitalebi-Dehkordi, Mahsa T. Pourazad, Panos Nasiopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Rank correlationCorrelationComputer scienceDepth mapSpearman's rank correlation coefficientDepth perceptionCorrelation coefficientComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRank (graph theory)Video qualityFidelityPearson product-moment correlation coefficientPerceptionQuality ScoreStatisticsMathematicsImage (mathematics)PsychologyMetric (unit)EngineeringGeometryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of multiview displays has made the need for synthesizing virtual views more pronounced, since it is not practical to capture all of the possible views when filming multiview content. View synthesis is performed using the available views and depth maps. There is a correlation between the quality of the synthesized views and the quality of depth maps. In this paper we study the effect of depth map quality on perceptual quality of synthesized view through subjective and objective analysis. Our evaluation results show that: 1) 3D video quality depends highly on the depth map quality and 2) the Visual Information Fidelity index computed between the reference and distorted depth maps has Pearson correlation ratio of 0.75 and Spearman rank order correlation coefficient of 0.67 with the subjective 3D video quality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.051 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207