MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043300565

L2 Optimized Predictive Image Coding with L∞ Bound

2013· article· en· W3043300565 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

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive codingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCoding (social sciences)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many scientific, medical and defense applications of image/video compression, an <em>l</em><sub>∞ </sub>error bound is required. However, pure <em>l</em><sub>∞</sub>-optimized image coding, colloquially known as near-lossless image coding, is prone to structured errors such as contours and speckles if the bit rate is not sufficiently high; moreover, previous <em>l</em><sub>∞</sub>-based image coding methods suffer from poor rate control. In contrast, the <em>l</em><sub>2</sub> error metric aims for average fidelity and hence preserves the subtlety of smooth waveforms better than the <em>l</em><sub>∞</sub> error metric and it offers fine granularity in rate control; but pure <em>l</em><sub>2</sub>-based image coding methods (e.g., JPEG 2000) cannot bound individual errors as <em>l</em><sub>∞</sub>-based methods can. This thesis presents a new compression approach to retain the benefits and circumvent the pitfalls of the two error metrics.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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