An Efficient Two-Level Dictionary-Based Technique for Segmentation and Compression Compound Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image data compression algorithms are essential for getting storage space reduction and, perhaps more importantly, to increase their transfer rates, in terms of space-time complexity. Considering that there isn't any encoder that gives good results across all image types and contents, this paper proposed an evolvable lossless statistical block-based technique for segmentation and compression compound or mixed documents that have different content types, such as pictures, graphics, and/or texts. Derived from the number of detected colors and to achieve better compression ratios, a new well-defined representation of the image is created which nonetheless retains the same image components. With the effort of reducing noise or other variations inside the scanned image, some primary operations are implemented. Thereafter, the proposed algorithm breaks down the compound document image into equal-size-square blocks. Next, inspired by the number of colors detected in each block, these blocks are categorized into a set of six-image objects, called classes, where each one contains a set of closely interrelated pixels that share the same common relevant attributes like color gamut and number, color occurrence, grey level, and others. After that, a new representation of these coherent classes is formed using the Lookup Dictionary Table (LUD), which is the real essence of this proposed algorithm. In order to form distinguishable labeled regions sharing the same attributes, adjacent blocks of similar color features are consolidated together into a single coherent whole entity, called segments or regions. After each region is encoded by one of the most off-the-shelf applicable compression techniques, these regions are eventually fused together into a single data file which then subjects to another compression stage to ensure better compression ratios. After the proposed algorithm has been applied and tested on a database containing 3151 24-bit-RGB-bitmap document images, the empirically-based results prove that the overall algorithm is efficient in the long run and has superior storage space reduction when compared with other existing algorithms. As for the empirical findings, the proposed algorithm has achieved (71.039 %) relative reduction in the data storage space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".