REVIEW 1 cited by
RankDVQA: Deep VQA based on Ranking-inspired Hybrid Training
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In recent years, deep learning techniques have shown significant potential for improving video quality assessment (VQA), achieving higher correlation with subjective opinions compared to conventional approaches. However, the development of deep VQA methods has been constrained by the limited availability of large-scale training databases and ineffective training methodologies. As a result, it is difficult for deep VQA approaches to achieve consistently superior performance and model generalization. In this context, this paper proposes new VQA methods based on a two-stage training methodology which motivates us to develop a large-scale VQA training database without employing human subjects to provide ground truth labels. This method was used to train a new transformer-based network architecture, exploiting quality ranking of different distorted sequences rather than minimizing the difference from the ground-truth quality labels. The resulting deep VQA methods (for both full reference and no reference scenarios), FR- and NR-RankDVQA, exhibit consistently higher correlation with perceptual quality compared to the state-of-the-art conventional and deep VQA methods, with average SROCC values of 0.8972 (FR) and 0.7791 (NR) over eight test sets without performing cross-validation. The source code of the proposed quality metrics and the large training database are available at https://chenfeng-bristol.github.io/RankDVQA.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Video Quality Assessment: A Comprehensive Survey
A comprehensive survey of video quality assessment methods and databases, with benchmark comparisons of full-reference and no-reference models on UGC and AIGC datasets.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.