Image Quality Assessment: From Mean Opinion Score to Opinion Score Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, many methods have been proposed to predict the image quality which is generally described by the mean opinion score (MOS) of all subjective ratings given to an image. However, few efforts focus on predicting the opinion score distribution of the image quality ratings. In fact, the opinion score distribution reflecting subjective diversity, uncertainty, etc., can provide more subjective information about the image quality than a single MOS, which is worthy of in-depth study. In this paper, we propose a convolutional neural network based on fuzzy theory to predict the opinion score distribution of image quality. The proposed method consists of three main steps: feature extraction, feature fuzzification and fuzzy transfer. Specifically, we first use the pre-trained VGG16 without fully-connected layers to extract image features. Then, the extracted features are fuzzified by fuzzy theory, which is used to model epistemic uncertainty in the process of feature extraction. Finally, a fuzzy transfer network is used to predict the opinion score distribution of image quality by learning the mapping from epistemic uncertainty to the uncertainty existing in the image quality ratings. In addition, a new loss function is designed based on the subjective uncertainty of the opinion score distribution. Extensive experimental results prove the superior prediction performance of our proposed method.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".