Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Image Quality Assessment: Exploring Regional Heterogeneity via Response of Adaptive Multiple Quality Factors in Dictionary Space

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A full-reference image quality metric that decomposes deep features into luminance, contrast, and structure and scores their responses in a learned dictionary space claims state-of-the-art agreement with human opinion on TID2013 and…

desk verdict A competitive FR-IQA baseline with real cross-database results, but the regional-heterogeneity story is not supported by the architecture's global pooling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18160 v1 pith:KJDIBL3O submitted 2024-12-24 eess.IV cs.CV

Xuting Lan , Mingliang Zhou , Jielu Yan , Xuekai Wei , Yueting Huang , Zhaowei Shang , Huayan Pu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords full-referenceimagequalityassessmentadaptivefactorsdictionaryspacevisualwordsregionalheterogeneitynon-uniformdistortiondeepfeaturesimilaritymetric
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a full-reference image quality metric that measures perceptual similarity by decomposing deep features into luminance, contrast, and structure components, then projecting those components onto a learnable dictionary of 1,024 visual words. The response of each quality factor to the dictionary basis vectors becomes a coordinate vector, and the quality score is the cosine similarity of reference and distorted coordinate distributions. On TID2013 and KADID-10k the reported correlations with human opinion scores are the best among the compared methods, and on LIVE and CSIQ the method stays in the top three. The work is aimed at distortions that vary across regions, where global metrics such as SSIM assume uniformity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the learned dictionary basis matrix $V \in \mathbb{R}^{1024 \times 512}$ together with the convolution-based response operation that projects each normalized quality-factor feature map into a distribution over 1,024 visual words. The paper calls this the response of factors in dictionary space: for each visual word $k$, a response map $R_k[i,j]$ is computed, then average pooling condenses it to a scalar per image, and cosine similarity between the reference and distorted response distributions gives the quality score. An adapter decomposes deep features into luminance, contrast, and structure factors, and reconstruction and decorrelation losses shape those factors during training.

What would settle it

Train the same pipeline but replace the learned dictionary with a fixed random basis of the same size, or freeze the dictionary at initialization, and compare PLCC/SRCC on TID2013 and KADID-10k; if the scores remain near $0.968/0.968$ and $0.964/0.961$, the claimed dictionary mechanism is not what drives the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that representing image quality as the response of adaptively selected quality factors in a learned dictionary space captures regional heterogeneity better than global deep-feature distances. With the AMqF pipeline, deep features are split into multi-head and luminance/contrast/structure streams, strengthened by a single-channel reconstruction decoder, and projected onto dictionary basis vectors $V\in\mathbb{R}^{1024\times512}$ by convolution; average-pooled responses form distributions $P_{\text{ref}}$ and $P_{\text{dist}}$ whose cosine similarity is the predicted quality. The paper reports PLCC/SRCC of $0.968/0.968$ on TID2013 and $0.964/0.961$ on KADID-10k, exceeding the compared methods, and top-three results on LIVE and CSIQ, arguing this reflects better handling of non-uniformly distorted regions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a trainable dictionary of 1,024 basis vectors, initialized randomly and learned from distorted training images, creates a complete and discriminative space that generalizes to unseen distortions; the paper does not compare it against a fixed or random dictionary, so the dictionary's specific role is what carries the claimed improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On TID2013 the method reports PLCC/SRCC of $0.968/0.968$, the best among the compared methods on that benchmark.
  • On KADID-10k it reports PLCC/SRCC of $0.964/0.961$, also the best among the compared methods.
  • On LIVE and CSIQ the reported correlations stay within the top three, so the advantage is not confined to one database.
  • Trained on KADID-10k and tested on other databases without fine-tuning, the model improves over the compared cross-database baselines on LIVE, CSIQ, and TID2013.
  • Removing either the adaptive quality-factor branch or the dictionary-response branch lowers performance, so both components are claimed to contribute to the final scores.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit testable extension: a per-distortion correlation breakdown on TID2013 and KADID-10k would show whether the advantage is actually concentrated in non-uniform and mixed distortions, as the paper argues.
  • Editorial reading: the dictionary response is conceptually a bag-of-visual-words histogram over deep-feature patches; if the gains reproduce, the same quantized-response idea could transfer to other perceptual similarity and retrieval tasks.
  • Editorial reading: because the adapter, reconstruction decoder, and dictionary are introduced together, the aggregate numbers do not isolate the dictionary's contribution; a variant that keeps everything fixed and swaps only the learned dictionary for a fixed random one would test the claimed mechanism directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AMqF, a full-reference IQA method that decomposes deep features from a pretrained backbone into multiple quality factors (luminance, contrast, structure) via an adapter, quantizes these factors into discrete visual words in a learnable dictionary space, and measures visual similarity via cosine similarity between global average response histograms of reference and distorted images. Experiments on LIVE, CSIQ, TID2013, and KADID-10k report competitive PLCC/SRCC values, with the best results on TID2013 and KADID-10k and top-three performance on LIVE and CSIQ. The abstract and introduction claim that the dictionary-based response captures regional heterogeneity and non-uniform distortions, but this central claim is not supported by the experimental design or the scoring mechanism.

Significance. If validated, the method would offer a novel angle for FR-IQA by introducing an adaptive factor decomposition and a dictionary-response representation. Strengths include a broad comparison with 19 methods across four datasets, a cross-database evaluation, and an anonymous code release, all of which are positive features. However, the claim of outperforming state-of-the-art is only partially supported by Table 1, and the proposed mechanism for non-uniform distortions is contradicted by the global pooling in Eq. (6) and is never tested directly. The ablation analysis in Section 5.3 contains misattributions that further weaken the evidence. The contribution is potentially interesting but requires substantial additional validation.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The final quality score in Eq. (7) is computed as the cosine similarity between global average response vectors Pref and Pdist, where each response map R_k is averaged over spatial positions in Eq. (6). This averaging discards all spatial layout information. As a result, a distortion confined to a small region and a uniform distortion that yield the same average response histogram produce identical scores, so the model cannot in principle distinguish them. The abstract and Section 4.1 claim that AMqF precisely captures quality features in non-uniformly distorted regions, but the scoring function does not use any spatial information. To support the central claim, the scoring must either preserve spatial layout or the paper must provide explicit experiments with localized distortions showing that the method behaves differently from global-histogram matching.
  2. [Section 5.2.1 and Table 1] The statement that AMqF 'outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches' is not fully supported by Table 1. On LIVE, TOPIQ-FR achieves PLCC/SRCC of 0.984/0.984 compared with 0.979/0.980 for AMqF; on CSIQ, TOPIQ-FR achieves 0.980/0.978 compared with 0.975/0.974. AMqF is best only on TID2013 and KADID-10k, and TOPIQ-FR is not evaluated on KADID-10k. The claim should be qualified as 'competitive with or better than SOTA on specific datasets.' In addition, the AMqF-VGG rows in Table 1 are never mentioned in the text, and the color-based highlighting of best/second/third results is not decipherable in the printed version; the table should explicitly mark ranking.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Tables 1-3] No experimental protocol details are reported. The paper does not state the training/validation split on reference images (e.g., the standard 80/20 split), the number of random runs, or the standard deviations of PLCC/SRCC. Without these, the reported improvements over TOPIQ-FR on TID2013 (0.968 vs 0.958 PLCC) and over JND-SalCAR on KADID-10k (0.964 vs 0.960) cannot be assessed for statistical significance. The cross-database experiment in Table 2 trains on the entire KADID-10k database, which is a different protocol from the main experiments; the relationship between the two protocols should be clarified.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Table 3] The ablation discussion misattributes the direction of the effects. The text states that removing AMQF 'indicates that the RFDS branch plays a crucial role,' but removing AMQF leaves the RFDS branch alone; similarly, removing RFDS is stated to demonstrate that AMQF enhances performance, whereas it leaves AMQF alone. The numbers also undermine the claim of complementarity: AMQF alone achieves LIVE PLCC 0.978, CSIQ PLCC 0.971, TID2013 PLCC 0.968, and KADID PLCC 0.947, close to the full model, whereas RFDS alone drops to 0.936, 0.970, 0.871, and 0.947 respectively. The marginal contribution of RFDS is therefore small or negative on some datasets, and the claimed 'indispensability' is not supported.
  5. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (5)-(6)] There are index errors that prevent reproduction. In Eq. (5), v_k is indexed by spatial positions (m,n), but V is defined as an N×D matrix in Eq. (4) with D the feature dimension; if v_k is a D-dimensional vector, the summation over C, H, W with v_k[m,n] is mismatched. In Eq. (6), the average for Pdist[k] and Pref[k] is taken only over i, leaving j free, and the symbol N is used for both the number of dictionary words (Eq. 4) and the number of spatial positions. The intended global average pooling should sum over both spatial indices and should use distinct notation for the two quantities.
  6. [Section 4.3] The core mechanism of a learned dictionary space is not validated. There is no comparison against a fixed or randomly initialized dictionary, no analysis of which visual words respond to which distortions, and no ablation that isolates the dictionary learning from the rest of the architecture. Without these controls, the paper does not demonstrate that the 'comprehensive and discriminative dictionary space' contributes to the reported performance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The notation Iref and Idist appears swapped: the text introduces 'given a batch of distorted images Iref and reference images Idist', but then uses Iref as the reference and Idist as the distorted input in the following equations. Please make the notation consistent throughout.
  2. [Section 4.2] The decoder for single-channel image reconstruction is described only qualitatively; no architecture, no training schedule, and no weight for the reconstruction loss Lre in the total loss are given. This makes the contribution of the reconstruction constraint unverifiable.
  3. [Figure 1] The labels Lref, Cref, Sref and Ldist, Cdist, Sdist are not defined in the caption, and the flow from the adapter to the dictionary and the score is hard to follow; a clearer diagram would help.
  4. [References] References [5] and [6] are duplicated (same paper by Cheon et al.), and reference [7] lists the same author twice; these should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4.4] The connection to the HVS is described qualitatively and is not operationalized in the model; for example, no parameter or constraint in the adapter is derived from HVS principles, so the claim that the adaptive factors 'align with human visual perception' is not empirically evidenced beyond the overall IQA accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is evaluated as standard supervised learning on held-out MOS labels, with no load-bearing self-citation or fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a learned FR-IQA pipeline: deep features are decomposed by an adapter, mapped through a trainable dictionary basis (Eq. 4), aggregated into response histograms (Eq. 6), and scored by cosine similarity (Eq. 7), with the entire model trained against MOS using standard losses (Eqs. 2, 3, 8). The dictionary V is randomly initialized and updated during training, and reported results (Tables 1 and 2) are on held-out test splits or cross-database evaluation; there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no equation that reduces to its input by construction. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [21] and [22]) appear as related work and baseline comparisons, not as load-bearing justification for the proposed architecture, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior same-author work to force the method's choice. The skeptical concern that global average pooling in Eq. 6 discards spatial layout and therefore weakens the 'regional heterogeneity' claim is a correctness or validity issue, not a circularity issue, because the claimed accuracy improvements are still obtained from a trained model rather than from restating the labels. The ablation text in Section 5.3 misattributes the roles of AMQF and RFDS, but that is an interpretive error, not a circular derivation. On the circularity criteria of self-definition, fitted-input prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness, ansatz smuggling, and renaming of known results, the paper is self-contained and scores 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model uses standard supervised learning with a handful of hand-chosen hyperparameters (dictionary size, feature dimension, number of factors). The main postulates are that ResNet features and the luminance/contrast/structure decomposition are perceptually aligned, and that the learned dictionary captures non-uniform distortions; none of these are tested independently.

free parameters (5)
  • Dictionary size N = 1024
    Chosen by hand (Eq. 4, Section 4.3); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Feature/basis dimension D = 512
    Chosen by hand (Eq. 4, Section 4.3); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Number of quality factors = 3 (luminance, contrast, structure)
    Fixed in Section 4.2; based on SSIM components, not learned.
  • Input crop size = 224x224
    Section 5.1; standard for ResNet50, no analysis.
  • Reconstruction loss weighting = Not specified
    Section 4.2 defines L_re as sum of L_grad and L_intensity, but relative weights or scaling are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Deep features from a pretrained ResNet50 encode perceptual quality information
    Used as the backbone throughout; Section 4.1/4.2, no justification beyond prior art.
  • domain assumption Luminance, contrast, and structure are the dominant quality factors for the HVS
    Section 4.2 states this without citation or experimental support; it is inherited from SSIM.
  • ad hoc to paper The adapter can separate deep features into independent quality factors
    Section 4.2 introduces 'adaptive decomposition' without defining the adapter architecture or showing the factors are independent.
  • domain assumption Learned dictionary basis vectors generalize to non-uniform distortions
    Section 4.3 posits this; no experiment validates it.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between dictionary response vectors approximates perceptual quality
    Eq. 7 defines the quality score; standard measure, but no validation that it is more aligned with MOS than other pooling.
invented entities (1)
  • Dictionary space of visual words
    purpose: Represent image features as responses to 1,024 learnable basis vectors to capture distortion patterns
    The paper introduces this representation but gives no independent evidence that the basis vectors correspond to meaningful visual words or distortion types; it is a learned latent space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image Quality Assessment: Exploring Regional Heterogeneity via Response of Adaptive Multiple Quality Factors in Dictionary Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJDIBL3O

@misc{pith2026241218160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image Quality Assessment: Exploring Regional Heterogeneity via Response of Adaptive Multiple Quality Factors in Dictionary Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJDIBL3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18160}
}
read the original abstract

Given that the factors influencing image quality vary significantly with scene, content, and distortion type, particularly in the context of regional heterogeneity, we propose an adaptive multi-quality factor (AMqF) framework to represent image quality in a dictionary space, enabling the precise capture of quality features in non-uniformly distorted regions. By designing an adapter, the framework can flexibly decompose quality factors (such as brightness, structure, contrast, etc.) that best align with human visual perception and quantify them into discrete visual words. These visual words respond to the constructed dictionary basis vector, and by obtaining the corresponding coordinate vectors, we can measure visual similarity. Our method offers two key contributions. First, an adaptive mechanism that extracts and decomposes quality factors according to human visual perception principles enhances their representation ability through reconstruction constraints. Second, the construction of a comprehensive and discriminative dictionary space and basis vector allows quality factors to respond effectively to the dictionary basis vector and capture non-uniform distortion patterns in images, significantly improving the accuracy of visual similarity measurement. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches in handling various types of distorted images. The source code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AMqF-44B2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Framework of our proposed method (AMqF). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scatter plots of the prediction results for various FR-IQA methods on the KADID-10k [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Full-reference image quality expression via genetic programming

    Illya Bakurov, Marco Buzzelli, Raimondo Schettini, Mauro Castelli, and Leonardo Vanneschi. Full-reference image quality expression via genetic programming. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 32:1458–1473, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Deep neural net- works for no-reference and full-reference image quality as- sessment

    Sebastian Bosse, Dominique Maniry, Klaus-Robert M ¨uller, Thomas Wiegand, and Wojciech Samek. Deep neural net- works for no-reference and full-reference image quality as- sessment. IEEE Transactions on image processing , 27(1): 206–219, 2017. 6, 8

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Incorporating semi-supervised and positive- unlabeled learning for boosting full reference image quality assessment

    Yue Cao, Zhaolin Wan, Dongwei Ren, Zifei Yan, and Wang- meng Zuo. Incorporating semi-supervised and positive- unlabeled learning for boosting full reference image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5851– 5861, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Topiq: A top-down approach from semantics to distortions for image quality assessment

    Chaofeng Chen, Jiadi Mo, Jingwen Hou, Haoning Wu, Liang Liao, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. Topiq: A top-down approach from semantics to distortions for image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,

    work page

  5. [6]

    Perceptual image quality assessment with trans- formers

    Manri Cheon, Sung-Jun Yoon, Byungyeon Kang, and Jun- woo Lee. Perceptual image quality assessment with trans- formers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 433–442,

    work page

  6. [7]

    Pearson correlation coefficient

    Israel Cohen, Yiteng Huang, Jingdong Chen, Jacob Benesty, Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen, Yiteng Huang, and Israel Cohen. Pearson correlation coefficient. Noise reduction in speech processing, pages 1–4, 2009. 6

    work page 2009

  7. [8]

    Projected distribution loss for image enhancement

    Mauricio Delbracio, Hossein Talebei, and Pevman Milanfar. Projected distribution loss for image enhancement. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photogra- phy (ICCP), pages 1–12. IEEE, 2021. 3, 6

    work page 2021

  8. [9]

    Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity

    Keyan Ding, Kede Ma, Shiqi Wang, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and ma- chine intelligence, 44(5):2567–2581, 2020. 1, 6, 8

    work page 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    Locally adaptive structure and texture similarity for image quality assessment

    Keyan Ding, Yi Liu, Xueyi Zou, Shiqi Wang, and Kede Ma. Locally adaptive structure and texture similarity for image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Inter- national Conference on multimedia, pages 2483–2491, 2021. 1, 6, 8

    2021

  2. [11]

    Comparison of full-reference image quality models for opti- mization of image processing systems.International Journal of Computer Vision, 129(4):1258–1281, 2021

    Keyan Ding, Kede Ma, Shiqi Wang, and Eero P Simoncelli. Comparison of full-reference image quality models for opti- mization of image processing systems.International Journal of Computer Vision, 129(4):1258–1281, 2021. 1

    2021

  3. [12]

    Egb: Image quality assessment based on ensemble of gradient boosting

    Dounia Hammou, Sid Ahmed Fezza, and Wassim Hami- douche. Egb: Image quality assessment based on ensemble of gradient boosting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 541–549, 2021. 1

    2021

  4. [13]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 1

    2016

  5. [14]

    Brain-inspired image perceptual quality assessment based on eeg: A qoe perspective

    Shuzhan Hu, Yiping Duan, Xiaoming Tao, Geoffrey Ye Li, Jianhua Lu, Guangyi Liu, Zhimin Zheng, and Chengkang Pan. Brain-inspired image perceptual quality assessment based on eeg: A qoe perspective. IEEE Transactions on Pat- tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 1

    2024

  6. [15]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5148–5157, 2021. 1

    2021

  7. [16]

    Deep learning of human visual sensitivity in image quality assessment framework

    Jongyoo Kim and Sanghoon Lee. Deep learning of human visual sensitivity in image quality assessment framework. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1676–1684, 2017. 6, 8

    2017

  8. [17]

    Dynamic receptive field generation for full-reference image quality assessment

    Woojae Kim, Anh-Duc Nguyen, Sanghoon Lee, and Alan Conrad Bovik. Dynamic receptive field generation for full-reference image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:4219–4231, 2020. 1

    2020

  9. [18]

    Attentions help cnns see better: Attention-based hybrid image quality assessment network

    Shanshan Lao, Yuan Gong, Shuwei Shi, Sidi Yang, Tianhe Wu, Jiahao Wang, Weihao Xia, and Yujiu Yang. Attentions help cnns see better: Attention-based hybrid image quality assessment network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition ...

    2022

  10. [19]

    Perceptual image quality assessment us- ing a normalized laplacian pyramid

    Valero Laparra, Johannes Ball ´e, Alexander Berardino, and Eero P Simoncelli. Perceptual image quality assessment us- ing a normalized laplacian pyramid. Electronic Imaging, 28: 1–6, 2016. 6, 8

    2016

  11. [20]

    Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy

    Eric Cooper Larson and Damon Michael Chandler. Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. Journal of electronic imaging , 19 (1):011006, 2010. 3, 6, 8

    2010

  12. [21]

    Deepwsd: Projecting degradations in perceptual space to wasserstein distance in deep feature space

    Xingran Liao, Baoliang Chen, Hanwei Zhu, Shiqi Wang, Mingliang Zhou, and Sam Kwong. Deepwsd: Projecting degradations in perceptual space to wasserstein distance in deep feature space. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, pages 970–978, 2022....

    2022

  13. [22]

    Image quality assessment: Measuring per- ceptual degradation via distribution measures in deep feature spaces

    Xingran Liao, Xuekai Wei, Mingliang Zhou, Zhengguo Li, and Sam Kwong. Image quality assessment: Measuring per- ceptual degradation via distribution measures in deep feature spaces. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  14. [23]

    Kadid-10k: A large-scale artificially distorted iqa database

    Hanhe Lin, Vlad Hosu, and Dietmar Saupe. Kadid-10k: A large-scale artificially distorted iqa database. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pages 1–3. IEEE, 2019. 6, 7, 8

    2019

  15. [24]

    Deepfl-iqa: Weak supervision for deep iqa feature learning

    Hanhe Lin, Vlad Hosu, and Dietmar Saupe. Deepfl-iqa: Weak supervision for deep iqa feature learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08113, 2020. 6, 8

    2001 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Swiniqa: Learned swin distance for compressed im- age quality assessment

    Jianzhao Liu, Xin Li, Yanding Peng, Tao Yu, and Zhibo Chen. Swiniqa: Learned swin distance for compressed im- age quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1795–1799, 2022. 1 9

    2022

  17. [26]

    Perceptual reduced-reference visual qual- ity assessment for contrast alteration

    Min Liu, Ke Gu, Guangtao Zhai, Patrick Le Callet, and Wenjun Zhang. Perceptual reduced-reference visual qual- ity assessment for contrast alteration. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 63(1):71–81, 2016. 3

    2016

  18. [27]

    Clib-fiqa: Face image quality assessment with confidence calibration

    Fu-Zhao Ou, Chongyi Li, Shiqi Wang, and Sam Kwong. Clib-fiqa: Face image quality assessment with confidence calibration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1694– 1704, 2024. 1

    2024

  19. [28]

    Color image database tid2013: Peculiarities and preliminary re- sults

    Nikolay Ponomarenko, Oleg Ieremeiev, Vladimir Lukin, Karen Egiazarian, Lina Jin, Jaakko Astola, Benoit V ozel, Kacem Chehdi, Marco Carli, Federica Battisti, et al. Color image database tid2013: Peculiarities and preliminary re- sults. In European workshop on visual information...

    2013

  20. [29]

    Pieapp: Perceptual image-error assessment through pairwise preference

    Ekta Prashnani, Hong Cai, Yasamin Mostofi, and Pradeep Sen. Pieapp: Perceptual image-error assessment through pairwise preference. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1808– 1817, 2018. 6, 8

    2018

  21. [30]

    Critical values for spearman’s rank order correlation

    Philip H Ramsey. Critical values for spearman’s rank order correlation. Journal of educational statistics, 14(3):245–253,

  22. [31]

    A novel just-noticeable-difference-based saliency-channel attention residual network for full-reference image quality predictions

    Soomin Seo, Sehwan Ki, and Munchurl Kim. A novel just-noticeable-difference-based saliency-channel attention residual network for full-reference image quality predictions. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Tech- nology, 31(7):2602–2616, 2020. 6, 8

    2020

  23. [32]

    A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms

    Hamid R Sheikh, Muhammad F Sabir, and Alan C Bovik. A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on image pro- cessing, 15(11):3440–3451, 2006. 6, 8

    2006

  24. [33]

    Graph-represented distribution similarity index for full-reference image quality assessment

    Wenhao Shen, Mingliang Zhou, Jun Luo, Zhengguo Li, and Sam Kwong. Graph-represented distribution similarity index for full-reference image quality assessment. IEEE Transac- tions on Image Processing, 2024. 1

    2024

  25. [34]

    Region-adaptive deformable network for image quality assessment

    Shuwei Shi, Qingyan Bai, Mingdeng Cao, Weihao Xia, Ji- ahao Wang, Yifan Chen, and Yujiu Yang. Region-adaptive deformable network for image quality assessment. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 324–333, 2021. 6

    2021

  26. [35]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 1

    2014 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Unifying dual- attention and siamese transformer network for full-reference image quality assessment

    Zhenjun Tang, Zhiyuan Chen, Zhixin Li, Bineng Zhong, Xianquan Zhang, and Xinpeng Zhang. Unifying dual- attention and siamese transformer network for full-reference image quality assessment. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 19(6):1–24,

  28. [37]

    Reduced-reference im- age quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural im- age statistic model

    Zhou Wang and Eero P Simoncelli. Reduced-reference im- age quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural im- age statistic model. In Human vision and electronic imaging X, pages 149–159. SPIE, 2005. 3

    2005

  29. [38]

    Mul- tiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment

    Zhou Wang, Eero P Simoncelli, and Alan C Bovik. Mul- tiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, pages 1398–1402. Ieee, 2003. 3, 6, 8

    2003

  30. [39]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 1, 3, 6, 8

    2004

  31. [40]

    Reduced-reference image quality assessment with visual in- formation fidelity

    Jinjian Wu, Weisi Lin, Guangming Shi, and Anmin Liu. Reduced-reference image quality assessment with visual in- formation fidelity. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 15(7): 1700–1705, 2013. 3, 6, 8

    2013

  32. [41]

    Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index

    Wufeng Xue, Lei Zhang, Xuanqin Mou, and Alan C Bovik. Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index. IEEE transactions on image processing, 23(2):684–695, 2013. 6, 8

    2013

  33. [42]

    Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assess- ment

    Lin Zhang, Lei Zhang, Xuanqin Mou, and David Zhang. Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assess- ment. IEEE transactions on Image Processing, 20(8):2378– 2386, 2011. 3, 6, 8

    2011

  34. [43]

    Vsi: A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assess- ment

    Lin Zhang, Ying Shen, and Hongyu Li. Vsi: A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assess- ment. IEEE Transactions on Image processing , 23(10): 4270–4281, 2014. 3, 6, 8

    2014

  35. [44]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 1, 3, 6, 8 10

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.