Boosting Image Quality Assessment Performance: Unsupervised Score Fusion by Deep Maximum a Posteriori Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decades, numerous Image Quality Assessment (IQA) models have emerged, aiming to predict the perceptual quality of images. However, individual models are often biased toward certain types of image content or distortions, depending on the design principle and process. An intuitive idea is to harness the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each IQA model, by fusing the scores of multiple models into a stronger one. Here we make one of the first attempts to seek an optimal solution for the idea and propose a general framework for unsupervised IQA score fusion using deep Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) estimation. The proposed model conducts fine-grained uncertainty estimation at the score level to increase the accuracy and reduce the uncertainty in fused predictions. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model over individual IQA models and other fusion methods. It also exhibits an interesting capability of rejecting "bad" models in the fusion process.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".