Full-reference image quality assessment by combining global and local distortion measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-reference image quality assessment (FR-IQA) techniques compare a reference and a distorted/test image and predict the perceptual quality of the test image in terms of a scalar value representing an objective score. The evaluation of FR-IQA techniques is carried out by comparing the objective scores from the techniques with the subjective scores (obtained from human observers) provided in the image databases used for the IQA. Hence, we reasonably assume that the goal of a human observer is to rate the distortion present in the test image. The goal oriented tasks are processed by the human visual system (HVS) through top-down processing which actively searches for local distortions driven by the goal. Therefore local distortion measures in an image are important for the top-down processing. At the same time, bottom-up processing also takes place signifying spontaneous visual functions in the HVS. To account for this, global perceptual features can be used. Therefore, we hypothesize that the resulting objective score for an image can be derived from the combination of local and global distortion measures calculated from the reference and test images. We calculate the local distortion by measuring the local correlation differences from the gradient and contrast information. For global distortion, dissimilarity of the saliency maps computed from a bottom-up model of saliency is used. The motivation behind the proposed approach has been thoroughly discussed, accompanied by an intuitive analysis. Finally, experiments are conducted in six benchmark databases suggesting the effectiveness of the proposed approach that achieves competitive performance with the state-of-the-art methods providing an improvement in the overall performance.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".