MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886239594 · doi:10.1109/tip.2019.2906582

Encoding Visual Sensitivity by MaxPol Convolution Filters for Image Sharpness Assessment

2019· article· en· W2886239594 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGaussian blurGaussian filterImage qualityHuman visual system modelFilter (signal processing)Metric (unit)Pattern recognition (psychology)Standard test imageHigh-pass filterDigital image

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel design of Human Visual System (HVS) response in a convolutional filter form to decompose meaningful features that are closely tied with image sharpness level. No-reference (NR) Image sharpness assessment (ISA) techniques have emerged as the standard of image quality assessment in diverse imaging applications. Despite their high correlation with subjective scoring, they are challenging for practical considerations due to high computational cost and lack of scalability across different image blurs. We bridge this gap by synthesizing the HVS response as a linear combination of Finite Impulse Response (FIR) derivative filters to boost the falloff of high band frequency magnitudes in natural imaging paradigm. The numerical implementation of the HVS filter is carried out with MaxPol filter library that can be arbitrarily set for any differential orders and cutoff frequencies to balance out the estimation of informative features and noise sensitivities. Utilized by HVS filter, we then design an innovative NR-ISA metric called "HVS-MaxPol" that (a) requires minimal computational cost, (b) produce high correlation accuracy with image sharpness level, and (c) scales to assess synthetic and natural image blur. Specifically, the synthetic blur images are constructed by blurring the raw images using Gaussian filter, while natural blur is observed from real-life application such as motion, out-of-focus, luminance contrast, etc. Furthermore, we create a natural benchmark database in digital pathology for validation of image focus quality in whole slide imaging systems called "FocusPath" consisting of 864 blurred images. Thorough experiments are designed to test and validate the efficiency of HVS-MaxPol across different blur databases and state-of-the-art NR-ISA metrics. The experiment result indicates that our metric has the best overall performance with respect to speed, accuracy and scalability.

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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207