Perceptual Quality Assessment of Smartphone Photography
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
As smartphones become people's primary cameras to take photos, the quality of their cameras and the associated computational photography modules has become a de facto standard in evaluating and ranking smartphones in the consumer market. We conduct so far the most comprehensive study of perceptual quality assessment of smartphone photography. We introduce the Smartphone Photography Attribute and Quality (SPAQ) database, consisting of 11,125 pictures taken by 66 smartphones, where each image is attached with so far the richest annotations. Specifically, we collect a series of human opinions for each image, including image quality, image attributes (brightness, colorfulness, contrast, noisiness, and sharpness), and scene category labels (animal, cityscape, human, indoor scene, landscape, night scene, plant, still life, and others) in a well-controlled laboratory environment. The exchangeable image file format (EXIF) data for all images are also recorded to aid deeper analysis. We also make the first attempts using the database to train blind image quality assessment (BIQA) models constructed by baseline and multi-task deep neural networks. The results provide useful insights on how EXIF data, image attributes and high-level semantics interact with image quality, how next-generation BIQA models can be designed, and how better computational photography systems can be optimized on mobile devices. The database along with the proposed BIQA models are available at https://github.com/h4nwei/SPAQ.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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