Objective quality assessment for image super-resolution: A natural scene statistics approach
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
There has been an increasing number of image super-resolution (SR) algorithms proposed recently to create images with higher spatial resolution from low-resolution (LR) images. Nevertheless, how to evaluate the performance of such SR and interpolation algorithms remains an open problem. Subjective assessment methods are useful and reliable, but are expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to be embedded into the design and optimization procedures of SR and interpolation algorithms. Here we make one of the first attempts to develop an objective quality assessment method of a given resolution-enhanced image using the available LR image as a reference. Our algorithm follows the philosophy behind the natural scene statistics (NSS) approach. Specifically, we build statistical models of frequency energy falloff and spatial continuity based on high quality natural images and use the departures from such models to quantify image quality degradations. Subjective experiments have been carried out that verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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