Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of Image: A Survey

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1406.7799 v1 pith:LXCFUOYG submitted 2014-06-30 cs.MM cs.CV

classification cs.MMcs.CV
keywords qualityimageassessmentimagesmethodssimilaritysubjectiveindex
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the increasing demand for image-based applications, the efficient and reliable evaluation of image quality has increased in importance. Measuring the image quality is of fundamental importance for numerous image processing applications, where the goal of image quality assessment (IQA) methods is to automatically evaluate the quality of images in agreement with human quality judgments. Numerous IQA methods have been proposed over the past years to fulfill this goal. In this paper, a survey of the quality assessment methods for conventional image signals, as well as the newly emerged ones, which includes the high dynamic range (HDR) and 3-D images, is presented. A comprehensive explanation of the subjective and objective IQA and their classification is provided. Six widely used subjective quality datasets, and performance measures are reviewed. Emphasis is given to the full-reference image quality assessment (FR-IQA) methods, and 9 often-used quality measures (including mean squared error (MSE), structural similarity index (SSIM), multi-scale structural similarity index (MS-SSIM), visual information fidelity (VIF), most apparent distortion (MAD), feature similarity measure (FSIM), feature similarity measure for color images (FSIMC), dynamic range independent measure (DRIM), and tone-mapped images quality index (TMQI)) are carefully described, and their performance and computation time on four subjective quality datasets are evaluated. Furthermore, a brief introduction to 3-D IQA is provided and the issues related to this area of research are reviewed.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Modeling Beyond MOS: Quality Assessment Models Must Integrate Context, Reasoning, and Multimodality

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper contending that multimedia quality assessment should move beyond scalar Mean Opinion Score toward context-aware, explainable, and multimodal modeling.

  2. Point Cloud Quality Assessment Using the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph) and Attention Fusion Network

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A clustering-plus-graph-attention method for blind point cloud quality assessment is presented, with reported state-of-the-art correlations that are contradicted or unsubstantiated in the paper's own evaluation.

Pith tools