MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202420269 · doi:10.18280/ria.350406

Blind Image Quality Assessment Using a CNN and Edge Distortion

2021· article· en· W3202420269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajesh Babu Movva

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkImage qualityPattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)PoolingImage (mathematics)Prewitt operatorFeature extractionDistortion (music)Computer visionPyramid (geometry)Kernel (algebra)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionImage processingEdge detectionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper introduces a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for the assessment of image quality without a reference image, which comes under the category of Blind Image Quality Assessment models. Edge distortions in the image are characterized as input feature vectors. This approach is in justification of the fact that subjective assessment focusses on image features that emanate from the edges and the boundaries present in the image. The earlier methods were found to use complex transformations on the image to extract the features before training or as a part of the training. The present work uses Prewitt kernel approach to extract the horizontal and vertical edge maps of the training images. These maps are then input to a simple CNN for extracting higher level features using non-linear transformations. The resultant features are mapped to image quality score by regression. The network uses Spatial Pyramid Pooling (SPP) layer to accommodate input images of varying sizes. The present proposed model was tested on popular datasets used in the domain of Image Quality Assessment (IQA). The experimental results have shown that the model competes with the earlier proposed models with simplicity of feature extraction and involvement of minimal complexity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207