Perceptual Depth Quality Assessment of Stereoscopic Omnidirectional Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depth perception plays an essential role in the viewer experience for immersive virtual reality (VR) visual environments. However, previous research investigations in the depth quality of 3D/stereoscopic images are rather limited, and in particular, are largely lacking for 3D viewing of 360-degree omnidirectional content. In this work, we make one of the first attempts to develop an objective quality assessment model named depth quality index (DQI) for efficient no-reference (NR) depth quality assessment of stereoscopic omnidirectional images. Motivated by the perceptual characteristics of the human visual system (HVS), the proposed DQI is built upon multi-color-channel, adaptive viewport selection, and interocular discrepancy features. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art image quality assessment (IQA) and depth quality assessment (DQA) approaches in predicting the perceptual depth quality when tested using both single-viewport and omnidirectional stereoscopic image databases. Furthermore, we demonstrate that combining the proposed depth quality model with existing IQA methods significantly boosts the performance in predicting the overall quality of 3D omnidirectional images.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".