The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PieAPP: Perceptual Image-Error Assessment Through Pairwise Preference
Open accessAbstract
The ability to estimate the perceptual error between images is an important problem in computer vision with many applications. Although it has been studied extensively, however, no method currently exists that can robustly predict visual differences like humans. Some previous approaches used hand-coded models, but they fail to model the complexity of the human visual system. Others used machine learning to train models on human-labeled datasets, but creating large, high-quality datasets is difficult because people are unable to assign consistent error labels to distorted images. In this paper, we present a new learning-based method that is the first to predict perceptual image error like human observers. Since it is much easier for people to compare two given images and identify the one more similar to a reference than to assign quality scores to each, we propose a new, large-scale dataset labeled with the probability that humans will prefer one image over another. We then train a deep-learning model using a novel, pairwise-learning framework to predict the preference of one distorted image over the other. Our key observation is that our trained network can then be used separately with only one distorted image and a reference to predict its perceptual error, without ever being trained on explicit human perceptual-error labels. The perceptual error estimated by our new metric, PieAPP, is well-correlated with human opinion. Furthermore, it significantly outperforms existing algorithms, beating the state-of-the-art by almost 3Ã - on our test set in terms of binary error rate, while also generalizing to new kinds of distortions, unlike previous learning-based methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 · Cited by 57,892
Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment
Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., & Bovik, A. C. (2004) · The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2003.1292216 · Cited by 6,253 · cited 2×
“To compare, we also test 1) model-based methods: Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), SSIM [52], MS-SSIM [53], GMSD [54], VSI [56], PSNR-HMA [41], FSIMc [57], SFF [12], and SCQI [4], and 2) learning-based methods: DOG-SSIMc [40], Lukin et al. [35], Kim et al. [25], and Bosse et al. [6,7].”
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 57
- o'donovan, 2014, Exploratory font selection using crowdsourced attributes, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33, 92, 10.1145/2601097.2601110 · DOI
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2604042 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2012.2236343 · DOI
- liu, 2011, Recent developments and future trends in visual quality assessment, APSIPA ASC
- 10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065715 · DOI
- lin, 2010, Perceptual image quality assessment: recent progress and trends, Visual Communications and Image Processing, 774403
- 10.1109/CVPR.2016.184 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2016.2631888 · DOI · Paper page
- lukin, 2015, Combining full-reference image visual quality metrics by neural network, SPIE Electron Imaging, 93940k
- liu, 2014, CID: IQ-a new image quality database, Proceedings of the International Conference on Image and Signal Processing, 193, 10.1007/978-3-319-07998-1_22 · DOI
- liang, 2016, Image quality assessment using similar scene as reference, Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 3
- le callet, 2005, Subjective quality assessment IRCCyN/IVC database
- 10.1016/j.jvcir.2011.01.005 · DOI
- abadi, 2015, TensorFlow Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems
- 0, Basic rules for Swiss systems
- 10.1109/IJCNN.2003.1223338 · DOI
- johnson, 2002, On contrast sensitivity in an image difference model, Proc IS and TS PICS Conf, 18
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2012.6288089 · DOI
- kang, 2014, Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1733
- joy, 2014, Recent developments in image quality assessment algorithms: A review, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 65, 192
- larson, 2010, Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy, Journal of Electronic Imaging, 19, 11006, 10.1117/1.3267105 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/CVPR.2017.213 · DOI
- tsukida, 2011, How to analyze paired comparison data, Technical Report
- 10.2200/S00010ED1V01Y200508IVM003 · DOI
- zhu, 2014, Mirror mirror: Crowdsourcing better portraits, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33, 234, 10.1145/2661229.2661287 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICIP.2012.6467150 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2011.2109730 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2014.2346028 · DOI
- 10.7305/automatika.53-4.241 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2013.2293423 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ISCAS.2002.1010688 · DOI
- 10.1155/2013/905685 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2015.2440172 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2013.2266579 · DOI
- chang, 2016, Automatic triage for a photo series, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35, 148, 10.1145/2897824.2925908 · DOI
- chen, 2006, Edge-based structural similarity for image quality assessment, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing
- 10.1109/ICIP.2006.313132 · DOI
- engelke, 2010, Subjective quality assessment for wireless image communication: Thewireless imaging quality database, International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics
- gao, 2017, Deepsim: Deep similarity for image quality assessment, Neurocomputing, 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.01.054 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.image.2005.03.013 · DOI
- 10.1186/1687-5281-2013-54 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2016.2545863 · DOI
- 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2016.60.6.060410 · DOI
- bosse, 2016, Full-reference image quality assessment using neural networks, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics
- 10.1016/j.image.2013.06.003 · DOI
- 10.1109/ISSPIT.2004.1433751 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2017.2760518 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICIP.2008.4711767 · DOI
- 10.2307/2334029 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TIP.2005.859378 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/TIP.2009.2025923 · DOI
- 10.1109/DCC.1994.305944 · DOI
- 10.1109/TIP.2006.881959 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.image.2014.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
- ponomarenko, 2011, Modified image visual quality metrics for contrast change and mean shift accounting, Experience of Designing and Applications of CAD Systems in Microelectronics Proceedings of the VI-th International Conference CA, 305
- reisenhofer, 2016, A Haar Wavelet-Based perceptual Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment
- ponomarenko, 2009, TID2008-A database for evaluation of full-reference visual quality assessment metrics, Advances of Modern Radioelectronics, 10, 30
Cited by
Sorted by citations
DreamSim: Learning New Dimensions of Human Visual Similarity using Synthetic Data
Fu, S., Tamir, N., Sundaram, S., Chai, L., Zhang, R., Dekel, T., & Isola, P. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2208 · Cited by 108
Shift-Tolerant Perceptual Similarity Metric
Ghildyal, A., & Liu, F. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19797-0_6 · Cited by 47
Agaian, S. S., Grigoryan, A. M., & Ayunts, H. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17070632
Flores Maza, C., & González Martínez, S. (2025) · Revista Tecnológica - ESPOL · doi:10.37815/rte.v37ne1.1317
“LPIPS demostró mayor alineación con la percepción humana, coherente con Prashnani et al. (2018), R. Zhang et al. (2018) y Gu et al. (2020).”
DiffSim: Taming Diffusion Models for Evaluating Visual Similarity
Song, Y., Liu, X., & Shou, M. Z. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 1
“Further improvements in these metrics have been achieved through optimizations on perceptual data, as seen in methods like LPIPS [83], PIE-APP [52], and DreamSim [15].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Prashnani, E., Cai, H., Mostofi, Y., & Sen, P.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-06
- Pages
- 1808-1817
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2798581339
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 5.73
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1619376, 1321168)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- perceptual image quality assessment, image distortion, pairwise preferences, pairwise learning, visual similarity, image quality metrics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PieAPP: Perceptual Image-Error Assessment Through Pairwise Preference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/cvpr.2018.00194
- The paper
- Prashnani, E., Cai, H., Mostofi, Y., & Sen, P. (2018). PieAPP: Perceptual Image-Error Assessment Through Pairwise Preference. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2018.00194