Perceptual Quality Assessment for Multi-Exposure Image Fusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-exposure image fusion (MEF) is considered an effective quality enhancement technique widely adopted in consumer electronics, but little work has been dedicated to the perceptual quality assessment of multi-exposure fused images. In this paper, we first build an MEF database and carry out a subjective user study to evaluate the quality of images generated by different MEF algorithms. There are several useful findings. First, considerable agreement has been observed among human subjects on the quality of MEF images. Second, no single state-of-the-art MEF algorithm produces the best quality for all test images. Third, the existing objective quality models for general image fusion are very limited in predicting perceived quality of MEF images. Motivated by the lack of appropriate objective models, we propose a novel objective image quality assessment (IQA) algorithm for MEF images based on the principle of the structural similarity approach and a novel measure of patch structural consistency. Our experimental results on the subjective database show that the proposed model well correlates with subjective judgments and significantly outperforms the existing IQA models for general image fusion. Finally, we demonstrate the potential application of the proposed model by automatically tuning the parameters of MEF algorithms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it