MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405452372 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.9.002

Improved intensity rounding and division near lossless image compression algorithm using delta encoding

2024· article· en· W4405452372 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Al Qerom

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuffman codingLossless compressionImage compressionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmRowRoundingPixelComputer visionImage processingData compressionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents RIFD-DLT, an advanced near-lossless image compression algorithm that combines Delta Encoding with the original rounding the intensity followed by division (RIFD) method. The RIFD method first minimizes the image intensities, which makes the next compression stages more efficient. Subsequently, Delta Encoding subtracts neighboring rows in each of the image's three-color matrices, using the proximity of pixel values in adjacent rows to further reduce the image intensity. Extensive investigations show that RIFD-DLT outperforms the state-of-the-art algorithms and benchmarks with respect to compression ratio and processing time. More specifically, RIFD-DLT compresses data from 11520 KBs to 2131 KBs with an 81.93% reduction and a 43.7% improvement over original RIFD-Huffman when compressing Kodak Image set. When comparing the RIFD-DLT with LICA algorithm, the total file size is reduced by 71.2%, representing a 10.73% improvement for RIFD-DLT. Also, RIFD-DLT shows notable speed gains over RIFD-Huffman, requiring only 34.62 seconds to compress and decompress all images from three datasets (Waterloo, Kodak and EPFL), as compared to 50.99 seconds for RIFD-Huffman. As for the image quality, the proposed algorithm achieved an average PSNR values of 58.51 dB, 51.3 dB, and 52.22 dB for the EPFL, Kodak, and Waterloo image sets, respectively, demonstrate the excellent image quality that persists after decompression, with a minimal distortion that is imperceptible to the human visual system and identically to the RIFD-Huffman PSNR. These findings show that, while preserving excellent image quality, RIFD-DLT provides an incredibly efficient and fast method of image compression.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207