Cited by 1Advanced Data Compression TechniquesVideo Coding and Compression TechnologiesSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques

Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders

Open access
Watkins, Yijing, Iaroshenko, Oleksandr, Sayeh, Mohammad, Kenyon, Garrett·2018·2018 IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation (SSIAI)

Abstract

Bottleneck autoencoders have been actively researched as a solution to image compression tasks. However, we observed that bottleneck autoencoders produce subjectively low quality reconstructed images. In this work, we explore the ability of sparse coding to improve reconstructed image quality for the same degree of compression. We observe that sparse image compression produces visually superior reconstructed images and yields higher values of pixel-wise measures of reconstruction quality (PSNR and SSIM) compared to bottleneck autoencoders. In addition, we find that using alternative metrics that correlate better with human perception, such as feature perceptual loss and the classification accuracy, sparse image compression scores up to 18.06% and 2.7% higher, respectively, compared to bottleneck autoencoders. Although computationally much more intensive, we find that sparse coding is otherwise superior to bottleneck autoencoders for the same degree of compression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ssiai.2018.8470336

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overcomplete AEs may learn a more generic representation of the input and provide better performances in various tasks than undercomplete AEs.

    “several studies suggested that overcomplete AEs, compared to undercomplete, may learn a more generic representation of the input and therefore provide better performances in various tasks.38,53”

    From Vibration-based structural health monitoring exploiting a combination of convolutional neural networks and autoencoders for temperature effects neutralization (2022) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Introduction (p. 1) reports that overcomplete sparse coding outperformed bottleneck autoencoders on several measures of thumbnail-image compression. But the paper compares sparse coding with autoencoders, not overcomplete with undercomplete autoencoders; it does not establish that overcomplete autoencoders learn more generic representations or perform better across various tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4][4] A. D. et al. Generating images with perceptual similarity metrics based on deep networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , 2016. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watkins, Y., Iaroshenko, O., Sayeh, M., & Kenyon, G.
Affiliations
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation (SSIAI)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-04
Pages
17-20
OpenAlex
W2766986296
Cited by
0
References
12
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation (SSIAI) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (89233218CNA000001)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (#89233218CNA000001)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Nuclear Security Administration (89233218C-NA000001)
  • Laboratory Directed Research and Development (89233218CNA000001)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (89233218CNA 000001)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Data Compression Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Video Coding and Compression Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Keywords
image compression, sparse coding, image reconstruction quality, perceptual loss, human perception, PSNR, SSIM, classification accuracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review