Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
80 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Learning Generalizable Perceptual Representations for Data-Efficient No-Reference Image Quality Assessment (2312.04838v1)

Published 8 Dec 2023 in cs.CV

Abstract: No-reference (NR) image quality assessment (IQA) is an important tool in enhancing the user experience in diverse visual applications. A major drawback of state-of-the-art NR-IQA techniques is their reliance on a large number of human annotations to train models for a target IQA application. To mitigate this requirement, there is a need for unsupervised learning of generalizable quality representations that capture diverse distortions. We enable the learning of low-level quality features agnostic to distortion types by introducing a novel quality-aware contrastive loss. Further, we leverage the generalizability of vision-LLMs by fine-tuning one such model to extract high-level image quality information through relevant text prompts. The two sets of features are combined to effectively predict quality by training a simple regressor with very few samples on a target dataset. Additionally, we design zero-shot quality predictions from both pathways in a completely blind setting. Our experiments on diverse datasets encompassing various distortions show the generalizability of the features and their superior performance in the data-efficient and zero-shot settings. Code will be made available at https://github.com/suhas-srinath/GRepQ.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. Degraded reference image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023.
  2. No reference opinion unaware quality assessment of authentically distorted images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2459–2468, 2023.
  3. Deep neural networks for no-reference and full-reference image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(1):206–219, 2017.
  4. Quality-aware unpaired image-to-image translation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(10):2664–2674, 2019.
  5. Massive online crowdsourced study of subjective and objective picture quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(1):372–387, 2015.
  6. No-reference image quality assessment via transformers, relative ranking, and self-consistency. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1220–1230, 2022.
  7. Pipal: a large-scale image quality assessment dataset for perceptual image restoration. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) 2020, pages 633–651. Springer International Publishing, 2020.
  8. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016.
  9. Koniq-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29:4041–4056, 2020.
  10. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:18661–18673, 2020.
  11. Fully deep blind image quality predictor. IEEE Journal of selected topics in signal processing, 11(1):206–220, 2016.
  12. Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 19(1):011006–011006, 2010.
  13. Clip-event: Connecting text and images with event structures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16420–16429, 2022.
  14. Rankiqa: Learning from rankings for no-reference image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1040–1049, 2017.
  15. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  16. Image quality assessment using contrastive learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:4149–4161, 2022.
  17. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21(12):4695–4708, 2012.
  18. Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal processing letters, 20(3):209–212, 2012.
  19. Blind image quality assessment: From natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(12):3350–3364, 2011.
  20. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018.
  21. Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2085–2094, 2021.
  22. Data-efficient image quality assessment with attention-panel decoder. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2023.
  23. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021.
  24. Blind image quality assessment: A natural scene statistics approach in the dct domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21(8):3339–3352, 2012.
  25. Re-iqa: Unsupervised learning for image quality assessment in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5846–5855, June 2023.
  26. A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(11):3440–3451, 2006.
  27. Blindly assess image quality in the wild guided by a self-adaptive hyper network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3667–3676, 2020.
  28. Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images. In AAAI, 2023.
  29. Mstriq: No reference image quality assessment based on swin transformer with multi-stage fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1269–1278, 2022.
  30. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004.
  31. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, volume 2, pages 1398–1402. Ieee, 2003.
  32. Fast-vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with fragment sampling. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Proceedings, pages 538–554. Springer, 2022.
  33. Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 23(2):684–695, 2013.
  34. Maniqa: Multi-dimension attention network for no-reference image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1191–1200, 2022.
  35. Unsupervised feature learning framework for no-reference image quality assessment. In 2012 IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1098–1105. IEEE, 2012.
  36. From patches to pictures (paq-2-piq): Mapping the perceptual space of picture quality. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3575–3585, 2020.
  37. Transformer for image quality assessment. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 1389–1393. IEEE, 2021.
  38. A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(8):2579–2591, 2015.
  39. Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(8):2378–2386, 2011.
  40. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586–595, 2018.
  41. Blind image quality assessment using a deep bilinear convolutional neural network. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 30(1):36–47, 2018.
  42. Blind image quality assessment via vision-language correspondence: A multitask learning perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14071–14081, 2023.
  43. Unleashing the power of contrastive self-supervised visual models via contrast-regularized fine-tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:29848–29860, 2021.
  44. Metaiqa: Deep meta-learning for no-reference image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14143–14152, 2020.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Suhas Srinath (3 papers)
  2. Shankhanil Mitra (6 papers)
  3. Shika Rao (1 paper)
  4. Rajiv Soundararajan (23 papers)
Citations (5)