Image Quality Score Distribution Prediction via Alpha Stable Model
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
Based on potentially subjective and diverse image quality scores given by a group of subjects, we propose to predict the distribution of image quality scores rather than the mean opinion score (MOS) of image quality. Therefore, in this paper, we use an alpha stable model to parameterize the image quality score distribution (IQSD), and propose an objective method to predict the alpha-stable-model-based IQSD. First, the LIVE database is re-recorded. Specifically, we invite a large group of subjects (187 valid subjects) to evaluate the quality of all 808 images in the LIVE database, with their scores forming reliable IQSDs. All images in the LIVE database and their collected subjective quality scores form a new image quality assessment database, named the SJTU IQSD database. We then propose a framework and algorithm to predict the alpha-stable-model-based IQSD, in which quality features are extracted from the structural and natural statistical information of each image, and support vector regressors are trained to predict the alpha stable model parameters. Experiments carried out on the SJTU IQSD database verify the feasibility of using the alpha stable model to describe the IQSD, and the experimental results show that the alpha-stable-model-based IQSD can reflect a large amount of subjective information on image quality. We also prove that the objective alpha-stable-model-based IQSD prediction method is effective. The code and the SJTU IQSD database can be downloaded at ‘ <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/YixuanGao98/Image-Quality-Score-Distribution-Prediction-via-Alpha-Stable-Model.git</uri> ’.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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