MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415401620 · doi:10.3390/electronics14204116

Enhancing JPEG XL’s Weighted Average Predictor: Genetic Algorithm Optimization of Expanded Sub-Predictor Ensemble

2025· article· en· W4415401620 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier Hill Roy, Mahmoud R. El-Sakka

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingJPEGEntropy (arrow of time)File sizeRedundancy (engineering)JPEG 2000PopulationQuantization (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lossless image compression relies heavily on prediction algorithms to reduce spatial redundancy before entropy coding. The JPEG XL standard employs a weighted average predictor that combines four sub-predictors with adaptive weighting; however, it uses fixed initial scaling factors regardless of the image content. This study introduces WOP8 (weighted optimization predictor for 8 sub-predictors), which extends the predictor diversity and optimizes initial weights using a genetic algorithm. Four additional predictors were incorporated—adaptive MED (JPEG-LS), enhanced adaptive median, Paeth (PNG), and GAP-based (CALIC)—forming an eight-predictor ensemble. A genetic algorithm with a population of 30 and 24 generations optimized the weight configurations by minimizing the compressed file size of the training data. Experiments were conducted on the Kodak and Tecnick datasets to evaluate performance and generalizability. The Kodak color dataset showed notable gains: with the weighted average predictor in isolation, WOP8 achieved a 0.24 BPP reduction (2.7% improvement) at high effort levels. Under standard JPEG XL operation mode, improvements were minor but consistent. These results confirm the value of targeted predictor optimization and demonstrate that genetic algorithms can effectively discover dataset-specific weighting patterns, offering a foundation for future component-level enhancements in JPEG XL.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207