Cited by 391Image and Video Quality AssessmentDigital Media Forensic DetectionImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

Quality Assessment of In-the-Wild Videos

Open access
Li, Dingquan, Jiang, Tingting, Jiang, Ming·2019·Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Abstract

Quality assessment of in-the-wild videos is a challenging problem because of the absence of reference videos and shooting distortions. Knowledge of the human visual system can help establish methods for objective quality assessment of in-the-wild videos. In this work, we show two eminent effects of the human visual system, namely, content-dependency and temporal-memory effects, could be used for this purpose. We propose an objective no-reference video quality assessment method by integrating both effects into a deep neural network. For content-dependency, we extract features from a pre-trained image classification neural network for its inherent content-aware property. For temporal-memory effects, long-term dependencies, especially the temporal hysteresis, are integrated into the network with a gated recurrent unit and a subjectively-inspired temporal pooling layer. To validate the performance of our method, experiments are conducted on three publicly available in-the-wild video quality assessment databases: KoNViD-1k, CVD2014, and LIVE-Qualcomm, respectively. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms five state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, specifically, 12.39%, 15.71%, 15.45%, and 18.09% overall performance improvements over the second-best method VBLIINDS, in terms of SROCC, KROCC, PLCC and RMSE, respectively. Moreover, the ablation study verifies the crucial role of both the content-aware features and the modeling of temporal-memory effects. The PyTorch implementation of our method is released at https://github.com/lidq92/VSFA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3343031.3351028

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • SOTA deep CNN-based BVQA models produce accurate quality predictions on legacy (single synthetic distortion) video datasets but struggle on recent in-the-wild UGC databases.

    “These SOTA deep CNN-based BVQA models [71][74] produce accurate quality predictions on legacy (single synthetic distortion) video datasets [1], [6], but struggle on recent in-the-wild UGC databases [10], [12], [13].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, D., Jiang, T., & Jiang, M.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-10-15
Pages
2351-2359
OpenAlex
W2965644659
Cited by
387
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 10
FWCI
9.05
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (2015CB351803)
  • the Natural Science Foundation of China (61572042, 61520106004, 61527804)
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
no-reference video quality assessment, human visual system, temporal memory, gated recurrent unit, temporal pooling, long-range dependencies

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