Image Sharpness Assessment Based on Local Phase Coherence
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
Sharpness is an important determinant in visual assessment of image quality. The human visual system is able to effortlessly detect blur and evaluate sharpness of visual images, but the underlying mechanism is not fully understood. Existing blur/sharpness evaluation algorithms are mostly based on edge width, local gradient, or energy reduction of global/local high frequency content. Here we understand the subject from a different perspective, where sharpness is identified as strong local phase coherence (LPC) near distinctive image features evaluated in the complex wavelet transform domain. Previous LPC computation is restricted to be applied to complex coefficients spread in three consecutive dyadic scales in the scale-space. Here we propose a flexible framework that allows for LPC computation in arbitrary fractional scales. We then develop a new sharpness assessment algorithm without referencing the original image. We use four subject-rated publicly available image databases to test the proposed algorithm, which demonstrates competitive performance when compared with state-of-the-art 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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