Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders

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 th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Watkins, Yijing, Sayeh, Mohammad, Iaroshenko, Oleksandr, Kenyon, Garrett
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Watkins, Yijing
Sayeh, Mohammad
Iaroshenko, Oleksandr
Kenyon, Garrett
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.48550/arxiv.1710.09926
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>arxiv_GOX</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_1710_09926</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1710_09926</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a676-a949b24f03c63171ed9ea7b54e2dba28b3bf869f910bfbf45aa7e29ff2c19b7d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj71uwjAUhb10qIAH6FS_QFLHduwYdaFRf5CQGGCPruNrFJXEkR1Q-_YFynSkbzjnfIQ8FSyXVVmyF4g_3Tkv9AUwY7h6JK_rHg5I69CPEVPqwrCkuxFiujLXDQd6Tjl9C9N0xAHbb7o6TQGHNjiMaU4ePBwTLu45I_uP9339lW22n-t6tclAaZWBkcZy6ZlolbhsozMI2pYSubPAKyusr5TxpmDWWy9LAI3ceM_bwljtxIw8_9fe7jdj7HqIv81Vo7lpiD_U9UMF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders</title><source>arXiv.org</source><creator>Watkins, Yijing ; Sayeh, Mohammad ; Iaroshenko, Oleksandr ; Kenyon, Garrett</creator><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Yijing ; Sayeh, Mohammad ; Iaroshenko, Oleksandr ; Kenyon, Garrett</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1710.09926</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition</subject><creationdate>2017-10</creationdate><rights>http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,780,885</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09926$$EView_record_in_Cornell_University$$FView_record_in_$$GCornell_University$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1710.09926$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Yijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sayeh, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iaroshenko, Oleksandr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenyon, Garrett</creatorcontrib><title>Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders</title><description>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.</description><subject>Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNotj71uwjAUhb10qIAH6FS_QFLHduwYdaFRf5CQGGCPruNrFJXEkR1Q-_YFynSkbzjnfIQ8FSyXVVmyF4g_3Tkv9AUwY7h6JK_rHg5I69CPEVPqwrCkuxFiujLXDQd6Tjl9C9N0xAHbb7o6TQGHNjiMaU4ePBwTLu45I_uP9339lW22n-t6tclAaZWBkcZy6ZlolbhsozMI2pYSubPAKyusr5TxpmDWWy9LAI3ceM_bwljtxIw8_9fe7jdj7HqIv81Vo7lpiD_U9UMF</recordid><startdate>20171026</startdate><enddate>20171026</enddate><creator>Watkins, Yijing</creator><creator>Sayeh, Mohammad</creator><creator>Iaroshenko, Oleksandr</creator><creator>Kenyon, Garrett</creator><scope>AKY</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171026</creationdate><title>Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders</title><author>Watkins, Yijing ; Sayeh, Mohammad ; Iaroshenko, Oleksandr ; Kenyon, Garrett</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a676-a949b24f03c63171ed9ea7b54e2dba28b3bf869f910bfbf45aa7e29ff2c19b7d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watkins, Yijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sayeh, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iaroshenko, Oleksandr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenyon, Garrett</creatorcontrib><collection>arXiv Computer Science</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watkins, Yijing</au><au>Sayeh, Mohammad</au><au>Iaroshenko, Oleksandr</au><au>Kenyon, Garrett</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders</atitle><date>2017-10-26</date><risdate>2017</risdate><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.</abstract><doi>10.48550/arxiv.1710.09926</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1710.09926
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_arxiv_primary_1710_09926
source arXiv.org
subjects Computer Science - Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
title Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T15%3A37%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-arxiv_GOX&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Image%20Compression:%20Sparse%20Coding%20vs.%20Bottleneck%20Autoencoders&rft.au=Watkins,%20Yijing&rft.date=2017-10-26&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.1710.09926&rft_dat=%3Carxiv_GOX%3E1710_09926%3C/arxiv_GOX%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true