Perceptual Quality Assessment of UHD-HDR-WCG Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Dynamic Range (HDR) Wide Color Gamut (WCG) Ultra High Definition (4K/UHD) content has become increasingly popular recently. Due to the increased data rate, novel video compression methods have been developed to maintain the quality of the videos being delivered to consumers under bandwidth constraints. This has led to new challenges for the development of objective Video Quality Assessment (VQA) models, which are traditionally designed without sufficient calibration and validation based on subjective quality assessment of UHD-HDR-WCG videos. The large performance variations between different consumer HDR TVs, and between consumer HDR TVs and professional HDR reference displays used for content production, further complicates the task of acquiring reliable subjective data that faithfully reflects the impact of compression on UHD-HDR-WCG videos. In this work, we construct a first-of-its-kind video database composed of PQ-encoded UHD-HDR-WCG content, which is subsequently compressed by H.264 and HEVC encoders. We carry out a subjective study on a professional 4K-HDR reference display in a controlled lab environment. We also benchmark representative Full Reference (FR) and No-Reference (NR) objective VQA models against the subjective data to evaluate their performance on compressed UHD-HDR-WCG video content. The database will be made available to the public, subject to content copyright constraints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".