Automatic Region Selection For Objective Sharpness Assessment Of Mobile Device Photos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile devices are the source of a vast majority of digital photos today. Photos taken by mobile devices generally have fairly good visual quality. When evaluating high-quality mobile device photos, people have to manually zoom in to local regions to discern the subtle difference. Understandably, a global objective quality assessment method cannot perform well on such task. Therefore, local region selection is widely recognized as a prerequisite for the following quality evaluation. Clearly, subjective regions selection suffers from the drawbacks in terms of productivity, reproducibility and optimality. In this paper, we propose an automatic local region selection algorithm for sharpness measurement of mobile device photos. Specifically, local texture statistics, depth, saliency, as well as inter-pictures difference, are used as main features to select an optimal local region, in which the sharpness is then measured. For validation, we have built a largescale database for sharpness evaluation of mobile device photos, with 100 different scenes shot by several flagship mobile phones. The experimental results show that the performance of classic sharpness evaluation algorithms can be substantially improved with the region selected by the proposed algorithm.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".