Blind Image Quality Assessment: A Fuzzy Neural Network for Opinion Score Distribution Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image quality assessment (IQA) has always been a popular research topic. There have been many methods proposed for predicting image quality, also known as the mean opinion score (MOS). However, it is worth noting that different people may assign different opinion scores to the same image. Image quality described by all subjective opinion scores can express rich subjective information about the image, such as diversity and uncertainty, which cannot be accurately described by a single MOS. Therefore, this paper proposes a fuzzy neural network to predict the opinion score distribution (OSD) of image quality. The fuzzy neural network includes three sub-networks: a feature extraction network, a feature fuzzification network, and a fuzzy learning network. First, a novel network is designed to extract image features. The extracted features are then fuzzified by fuzzy theory to model the epistemic uncertainty in the feature extraction process. Finally, the OSD of image quality is predicted using the fuzzy learning network by learning the mapping from fuzzy features to fuzzy uncertainty when rating image quality. In addition, to train the proposed fuzzy neural network, we employ a new loss function based on the quantile and the cumulative density function. We experimentally validate the feasibility and superiority of the proposed method in two aspects. On the one hand, we demonstrate the performance of the proposed method in predicting the OSD of image quality on the SJTU IQSD and KonIQ-10K databases. On the other hand, we also prove the feasibility of the proposed method in predicting the MOS of image quality on several popular IQA databases, including CSIQ, TID2013, LIVE MD, and LIVE Challenge.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".