skip to main content
10.1145/3009977.3010014acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicvgipConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Blind image quality assessment using subspace alignment

Published:18 December 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the problem of estimating the quality of an image as it would be perceived by a human. A well accepted approach to assess perceptual quality of an image is to quantify its loss of structural information. We propose a blind image quality assessment method that aims at quantifying structural information loss in a given (possibly distorted) image by comparing its structures with those extracted from a database of clean images. We first construct a subspace from the clean natural images using (i) principal component analysis (PCA), and (ii) overcomplete dictionary learning with sparsity constraint. While PCA provides mathematical convenience, an overcomplete dictionary is known to capture the perceptually important structures resembling the simple cells in the primary visual cortex. The subspace learned from the clean images is called the source subspace. Similarly, a subspace, called the target subspace, is learned from the distorted image. In order to quantify the structural information loss, we use a subspace alignment technique which transforms the target subspace into the source by optimizing over a transformation matrix. This transformation matrix is subsequently used to measure the global and local (patch-based) quality score of the distorted image. The quality scores obtained by the proposed method are shown to correlate well with the subjective scores obtained from human annotators. Our method achieves competitive results when evaluated on three benchmark databases.

References

  1. live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/pristinedata.zip.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Aharon, M. Elad, and A. Bruckstein. K-svd: An algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation. IEEE Transactions on signal processing, 54(11):4311--4322, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. M. Chandler and S. S. Hemami. Vsnr: A wavelet-based visual signal-to-noise ratio for natural images. IEEE transactions on image processing, 16(9):2284--2298, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. Fernando, A. Habrard, M. Sebban, and T. Tuytelaars. Unsupervised visual domain adaptation using subspace alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2960--2967, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. B. Girod. What's wrong with mean-squared error? In Digital images and human vision, pages 207--220. MIT press, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. Guha, E. Nezhadarya, and R. K. Ward. Sparse representation-based image quality assessment. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 29(10):1138--1148, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Q. Jiang, F. Shao, G. Jiang, M. Yu, and Z. Peng. Supervised dictionary learning for blind image quality assessment using quality-constraint sparse coding. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 33:123--133, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Kang, P. Ye, Y. Li, and D. Doermann. Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1733--1740, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. E. Larson and D. Chandler. Categorical image quality assessment (csiq) database.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Li, L. Zou, J. Yan, D. Deng, T. Qu, and G. Xie. No-reference image quality assessment using prewitt magnitude based on convolutional neural networks. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 10(4):609--616, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21(12):4695--4708, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Mittal, R. Soundararajan, and A. C. Bovik. Making a completely blind image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 20(3):209--212, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. B. A. Olshausen et al. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature, 381(6583):607--609, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Y. C. Pati, R. Rezaiifar, and P. Krishnaprasad. Orthogonal matching pursuit: Recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In Signals, Systems and Computers, 1993. 1993 Conference Record of The Twenty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on, pages 40--44. IEEE, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. N. Ponomarenko and K. Egiazarian. Tampere image database (tid2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. K. M. Priya and S. S. Channappayya. A novel sparsity-inspired blind image quality assessment algorithm. In Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP), 2014 IEEE Global Conference on, pages 984--988. IEEE, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. M. A. Saad, A. C. Bovik, and C. Charrier. A dct statistics-based blind image quality index. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 17(6):583--586, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. H. Sheikh, Z. Wang, and A. Bovik. Live image quality assessment database release 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600--612, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. W. Xue, L. Zhang, and X. Mou. Learning without human scores for blind image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 995--1002, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. L. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Mou, and D. Zhang. Fsim: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(8):2378--2386, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Blind image quality assessment using subspace alignment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICVGIP '16: Proceedings of the Tenth Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing
      December 2016
      743 pages
      ISBN:9781450347532
      DOI:10.1145/3009977

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 December 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ICVGIP '16 Paper Acceptance Rate95of286submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate95of286submissions,33%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader