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...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |