Cited by 187Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisImage and Video Quality AssessmentAdvanced Image Processing Techniques

Learning to generate images with perceptual similarity metrics

Open access
Snell, Jake, Ridgeway, Karl, Liao, Renjie, Roads, Brett D., Mozer, Michael C., Zemel, Richard S.·2017·2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)

Abstract

Deep networks are increasingly being applied to problems involving image synthesis, e.g., generating images from textual descriptions and reconstructing an input image from a compact representation. Supervised training of image-synthesis networks typically uses a pixel-wise loss (PL) to indicate the mismatch between a generated image and its corresponding target image. We propose instead to use a loss function that is better calibrated to human perceptual judgments of image quality: the multiscale structural-similarity score (MS-SSIM) [1]. Because MS-SSIM is differentiable, it is easily incorporated into gradient-descent learning. We compare the consequences of using MS-SSIM versus PL loss on training autoencoders. Human observers reliably prefer images synthesized by MS-SSIM-optimized models over those synthesized by PL-optimized models, for two distinct PL measures (L1and L2distances). We also explore the effect of training objective on image encoding and analyze conditions under which perceptually-optimized representations yield better performance on image classification. Finally, we demonstrate the superiority of perceptually-optimized networks for super-resolution imaging. We argue that significant advances can be made in modeling images through the use of training objectives that are well aligned to characteristics of human perception.

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/icip.2017.8297089

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modern deep-learning metrics like LPIPS offer better perceptual alignment with human judgment but remain computationally prohibitive for real-time, resource-constrained environments.

    “Conversely, modern deep-learning metrics like LPIPS offer better perceptual alignment but remain computationally prohibitive for real-time, resource-constrained environments.”

    From A Survey and Tutorial on Image Quality Assessment with a Contrast-Weighted Structural Similarity Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Abstract and §7 report that human observers preferred images from SSIM/MS-SSIM-optimized networks over those from pixel-loss-optimized networks, supporting the general point about perceptual alignment. The paper does not evaluate LPIPS or say that perceptual metrics are computationally prohibitive in real-time, resource-constrained settings. Its discussion of computational cost in §2.1 concerns training Boltzmann-machine models instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Deep learning-based similarity metrics such as LPIPS correlate strongly with human judgment but incur high computational costs, offer low interpretability, and are vulnerable to adversarial perturbations.

    “Deep learning-based similarity [29-34]: Semantic similarity learning uses convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to embed images in a structured feature space. Metrics such as LPIPS (learned perceptual image patch similarity) correlate strongly with human judgment but incur high computational costs, offer low interpretability (a 'black-box' nature), and are vulnerable to adversarial perturbations.”

    From A Survey and Tutorial on Image Quality Assessment with a Contrast-Weighted Structural Similarity Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 3.2.2 reports that human judges ranked MS-SSIM-optimized reconstructions highest for 709 of 1,000 images, supporting the broader point that perceptually grounded methods can align with human judgments. The paper does not establish that LPIPS correlates strongly with human judgment, or address LPIPS’s computational cost, interpretability, or vulnerability to adversarial perturbations. Its Discussion mentions “black-box loss functions” as a modeling possibility, not as evidence of low interpretability. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]11. I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, and M. Mirza. Gen- erative adversarial networks. arXiv 1406.266v1 [stat.ML], pages 1-9, 2014. 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Snell, J., Ridgeway, K., Liao, R., Roads, B. D., Mozer, M. C., & Zemel, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-09
Pages
4277-4281
ISSN
1522-4880 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2174358748
Cited by
186
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.96
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0542013, 1041755, 1461535)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Keywords
perceptual image quality, MS-SSIM, image generation, loss function design, autoencoder, image reconstruction, image classification, super-resolution, human perception

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