MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750764646 · doi:10.1109/icmew.2017.8026266

Quality assessment of stereoscopic 3D images based on local and global visual characteristics

2017· article· en· W2750764646 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Chen, Jiying Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoscopyComputer scienceComputer visionQuality (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Image qualityImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality assessment of stereoscopic images is playing a critical role in 3D multimedia applications. The 3D image quality evaluation encounters many challenges and simple extension of the 2D quality metrics to the 3D case is not satisfying. In this work, we propose a new perceptual quality assessment scheme for stereoscopic 3D images by considering the human visual characteristics. After the log-Gabor filter processing, the local amplitude and phase from the left and right views of the reference and distorted 3D images are utilized as features in local quality evaluation. Meanwhile, the global structure changes of the left and right views are also incorporated into the final quality pooling. The overall 3D quality score is obtained by combining the local and global quality indexes together. The effectiveness of the designed metric is verified on three public 3D image quality assessment databases. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed scheme exhibits better performance than other related algorithms in terms of consistency with subjective assessment of stereoscopic 3D images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207