Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Image: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing demand for image-based applications, the efficient and reliable evaluation of image quality has increased in importance. Measuring the image quality is of fundamental importance for numerous image processing applications, where the goal of image quality assessment (IQA) methods is to automatically evaluate the quality of images in agreement with human quality judgments. Numerous IQA methods have been proposed over the past years to fulfill this goal. In this paper, a survey of the quality assessment methods for conventional image signals, as well as the newly emerged ones, which includes the high dynamic range (HDR) and 3-D images, is presented. A comprehensive explanation of the subjective and objective IQA and their classification is provided. Six widely used subjective quality datasets, and performance measures are reviewed. Emphasis is given to the full-reference image quality assessment (FR-IQA) methods, and 9 often-used quality measures (including mean squared error (MSE), structural similarity index (SSIM), multi-scale structural similarity index (MS-SSIM), visual information fidelity (VIF), most apparent distortion (MAD), feature similarity measure (FSIM), feature similarity measure for color images (FSIMC), dynamic range independent measure (DRIM), and tone-mapped images quality index (TMQI)) are carefully described, and their performance and computation time on four subjective quality datasets are evaluated. Furthermore, a brief introduction to 3-D IQA is provided and the issues related to this area of research are reviewed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it