Learning-Based Quality Assessment for Image Super-Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image Super-Resolution (SR) techniques improve visual quality by enhancing the spatial resolution of images. Quality evaluation metrics play a critical role in comparing and optimizing SR algorithms, but current metrics achieve only limited success, largely due to the lack of large-scale quality databases, which are essential for learning accurate and robust SR quality metrics. In this work, we first build a large-scale SR image database using a novel semi-automatic labeling approach, which allows us to label a large number of images with manageable human workload. The resulting SR Image quality database with Semi-Automatic Ratings (SISAR), so far the largest of SR-IQA database, contains 12 600 images of 100 natural scenes. We train an end-to-end Deep Image SR Quality (DISQ) model by employing two-stream Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) for feature extraction, followed by a feature fusion network for quality prediction. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art metrics and achieves promising generalization performance in cross-database tests. The SISAR database and DISQ model will be made publicly available to facilitate reproducible research.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".