MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Novel No-Reference HD Video Quality Metric Based on Perceptual Temporal Pooling

2023· article· en· W4391306754 on OpenAlexafffund
Jie Xiang, Hamid Reza Tohidypour, Yixiao Wang, Panos Nasiopoulos, Mahsa T. Pourazad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoolingComputer scienceVideo qualitySubjective video qualityArtificial intelligenceMetric (unit)Computer visionPerceptionQuality ScoreImage qualityPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impressive advancements in capturing, display, and broadcasting technologies significantly elevate image and video quality, and with that the need for designing new reference and no-reference image and video quality metrics. One of the latest and perceptually accurate video quality metrics is the Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion (VMAF) method. However, VMAF considers the temporal nature of video using basic average temporal pooling, an approach that falls short from human perception. In this paper, we introduce a new no-reference video quality metric that uses deep learning to extract spatial features and a unique temporal pooling approach to accurately predict the visual quality score. To this end, first we created a video quality dataset that consists of high-resolution, 20s-long test video clips compressed at several different bitrates. These videos were labeled based on subjective evaluations and were used to determine the perceptual importance of frames in our temporal pooling scheme. Evaluations showed that our proposed approach achieved correlation of 90.55% with human perception and outperformed the state-of-the-art VMAF approach by 15.63% accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207