SPSIM: A Superpixel-Based Similarity Index for Full-Reference Image Quality Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-reference image quality assessment algorithms usually perform comparisons of features extracted from square patches. These patches do not have any visual meanings. On the contrary, a superpixel is a set of image pixels that share similar visual characteristics and is thus perceptually meaningful. Features from superpixels may improve the performance of image quality assessment. Inspired by this, we propose a new superpixel-based similarity index by extracting perceptually meaningful features and revising similarity measures. The proposed method evaluates image quality on the basis of three measurements, namely, superpixel luminance similarity, superpixel chrominance similarity, and pixel gradient similarity. The first two measurements assess the overall visual impression on local images. The third measurement quantifies structural variations. The impact of superpixel-based regional gradient consistency on image quality is also analyzed. Distorted images showing high regional gradient consistency with the corresponding reference images are visually appreciated. Therefore, the three measurements are further revised by incorporating the regional gradient consistency into their computations. A weighting function that indicates superpixel-based texture complexity is utilized in the pooling stage to obtain the final quality score. Experiments on several benchmark databases demonstrate that the proposed method is competitive with the state-of-the-art metrics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".