Mean Deviation Similarity Index: Efficient and Reliable Full-Reference Image Quality Evaluator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications of perceptual image quality assessment (IQA) in image and video processing, such as image acquisition, image compression, image restoration, and multimedia communication, have led to the development of many IQA metrics. In this paper, a reliable full reference IQA model is proposed that utilize gradient similarity (GS), chromaticity similarity (CS), and deviation pooling (DP). By considering the shortcomings of the commonly used GS to model the human visual system (HVS), a new GS is proposed through a fusion technique that is more likely to follow HVS. We propose an efficient and effective formulation to calculate the joint similarity map of two chromatic channels for the purpose of measuring color changes. In comparison with a commonly used formulation in the literature, the proposed CS map is shown to be more efficient and provide comparable or better quality predictions. Motivated by a recent work that utilizes the standard DP, a general formulation of the DP is presented in this paper and used to compute a final score from the proposed GS and CS maps. This proposed formulation of DP benefits from the Minkowski pooling and a proposed power pooling as well. The experimental results on six data sets of natural images, a synthetic data set, and a digitally retouched dataset show that the proposed index provides comparable or better quality predictions than the most recent and competing state-of-the-art IQA metrics in the literature, it is reliable and has low complexity. The MATLAB source code of the proposed metric is available at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/74505502/MDSI.m.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".