The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Statistical Evaluation of Recent Full Reference Image Quality Assessment Algorithms
Abstract
Measurement of visual quality is of fundamental importance for numerous image and video processing applications, where the goal of quality assessment (QA) algorithms is to automatically assess the quality of images or videos in agreement with human quality judgments. Over the years, many researchers have taken different approaches to the problem and have contributed significant research in this area and claim to have made progress in their respective domains. It is important to evaluate the performance of these algorithms in a comparative setting and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these methods. In this paper, we present results of an extensive subjective quality assessment study in which a total of 779 distorted images were evaluated by about two dozen human subjects. The "ground truth" image quality data obtained from about 25,000 individual human quality judgments is used to evaluate the performance of several prominent full-reference image quality assessment algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, apart from video quality studies conducted by the Video Quality Experts Group, the study presented in this paper is the largest subjective image quality study in the literature in terms of number of images, distortion types, and number of human judgments per image. Moreover, we have made the data from the study freely available to the research community. This would allow other researchers to easily report comparative results in the future.
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
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
Self-citationImage quality measures and their performance
Eskicioglu, A. M., & Fisher, P. S. (1995) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/26.477498 · Cited by 2,117
Cited by
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric
Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A. A., Shechtman, E., & Wang, O. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00068 · Cited by 14,623
Making a “Completely Blind” Image Quality Analyzer
Mittal, A., Soundararajan, R., & Bovik, A. C. (2013) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2012.2227726 · Cited by 6,766
Self-citationNo-Reference Image Quality Assessment in the Spatial Domain
Mittal, A., Moorthy, A. K., & Bovik, A. C. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2012.2214050 · Cited by 6,064
Self-citationNTIRE 2017 Challenge on Single Image Super-Resolution: Dataset and Study
Agustsson, E., & Timofte, R. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2017.150 · Cited by 4,295
Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures
Wang, Z., & Bovik, A. C. (2009) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2008.930649 · Cited by 3,175
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheikh, H. R., Sabir, M. F., & Bovik, A. C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3440-3451
- ISSN
- 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161907179
- Cited by
- 2,966
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 51.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.