Cited by 339Image and Video Quality AssessmentDigital Media Forensic DetectionImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

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 access
Prashnani, Ekta, Cai, Hong, Mostofi, Yasamin, Sen, Pradeep·2018·2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2018.00194

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. o'donovan, 2014, Exploratory font selection using crowdsourced attributes, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33, 92, 10.1145/2601097.2601110 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2604042 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/TIP.2012.2236343 · DOI
  4. liu, 2011, Recent developments and future trends in visual quality assessment, APSIPA ASC
  5. 10.1109/QoMEX.2011.6065715 · DOI
  6. lin, 2010, Perceptual image quality assessment: recent progress and trends, Visual Communications and Image Processing, 774403
  7. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.184 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/TIP.2016.2631888 · DOI · Paper page
  9. lukin, 2015, Combining full-reference image visual quality metrics by neural network, SPIE Electron Imaging, 93940k
  10. 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
  11. liang, 2016, Image quality assessment using similar scene as reference, Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 3
  12. le callet, 2005, Subjective quality assessment IRCCyN/IVC database
  13. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2011.01.005 · DOI
  14. abadi, 2015, TensorFlow Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems
  15. 0, Basic rules for Swiss systems
  16. 10.1109/IJCNN.2003.1223338 · DOI
  17. johnson, 2002, On contrast sensitivity in an image difference model, Proc IS and TS PICS Conf, 18
  18. 10.1109/ICASSP.2012.6288089 · DOI
  19. kang, 2014, Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1733
  20. joy, 2014, Recent developments in image quality assessment algorithms: A review, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 65, 192
  21. 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
  22. 10.1109/CVPR.2017.213 · DOI
  23. tsukida, 2011, How to analyze paired comparison data, Technical Report
  24. 10.2200/S00010ED1V01Y200508IVM003 · DOI
  25. zhu, 2014, Mirror mirror: Crowdsourcing better portraits, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 33, 234, 10.1145/2661229.2661287 · DOI
  26. 10.1109/ICIP.2012.6467150 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/TIP.2011.2109730 · DOI
  28. 10.1109/TIP.2014.2346028 · DOI
  29. 10.7305/automatika.53-4.241 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/TIP.2013.2293423 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1109/ISCAS.2002.1010688 · DOI
  32. 10.1155/2013/905685 · DOI
  33. 10.1109/TIP.2015.2440172 · DOI
  34. 10.1109/TIP.2013.2266579 · DOI
  35. chang, 2016, Automatic triage for a photo series, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35, 148, 10.1145/2897824.2925908 · DOI
  36. chen, 2006, Edge-based structural similarity for image quality assessment, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing
  37. 10.1109/ICIP.2006.313132 · DOI
  38. engelke, 2010, Subjective quality assessment for wireless image communication: Thewireless imaging quality database, International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics
  39. gao, 2017, Deepsim: Deep similarity for image quality assessment, Neurocomputing, 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.01.054 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.image.2005.03.013 · DOI
  41. 10.1186/1687-5281-2013-54 · DOI
  42. 10.1109/TIP.2016.2545863 · DOI
  43. 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2016.60.6.060410 · DOI
  44. bosse, 2016, Full-reference image quality assessment using neural networks, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics
  45. 10.1016/j.image.2013.06.003 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/ISSPIT.2004.1433751 · DOI
  47. 10.1109/TIP.2017.2760518 · DOI
  48. 10.1109/ICIP.2008.4711767 · DOI
  49. 10.2307/2334029 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1109/TIP.2005.859378 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1109/TIP.2009.2025923 · DOI
  52. 10.1109/DCC.1994.305944 · DOI
  53. 10.1109/TIP.2006.881959 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.image.2014.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 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
  56. reisenhofer, 2016, A Haar Wavelet-Based perceptual Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment
  57. 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

See all 339

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
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