mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment of High Frame Rate Videos

arXiv 2007.11634 ↗First posted 22 Jul 2020cs.MM cs.CV eess.IVcited by 24

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

High frame rate (HFR) videos are becoming increasingly common with the tremendous popularity of live, high-action streaming content such as sports. Although HFR contents are generally of very high quality, high bandwidth requirements make them challenging to deliver efficiently, while simultaneously maintaining their quality. To optimize trade-offs between bandwidth requirements and video quality, in terms of frame rate adaptation, it is imperative to understand the intricate relationship between frame rate and perceptual video quality. Towards advancing progression in this direction we designed a new subjective resource, called the LIVE-YouTube-HFR (LIVE-YT-HFR) dataset, which is comprised of 480 videos having 6 different frame rates, obtained from 16 diverse contents. In order to understand the combined effects of compression and frame rate adjustment, we also processed videos at 5 compression levels at each frame rate. To obtain subjective labels on the videos, we conducted a human study yielding 19,000 human quality ratings obtained from a pool of 85 human subjects. We also conducted a holistic evaluation of existing state-of-the-art Full and No-Reference video quality algorithms, and statistically benchmarked their performance on the new database. The LIVE-YT-HFR database has been made available online for public use and evaluation purposes, with hopes that it will help advance research in this exciting video technology direction. It may be obtained at urlhttps://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/LIVEYTHFR/LIVEYTHFR/index.html

Key facts. Cited by 24 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 8; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

24 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2022A Deep Learning based No-reference Quality Assessment Model for UGC Videoscited by 128
  2. 2024Modular Blind Video Quality Assessmentcited by 23
  3. 2022CONVIQT: Contrastive Video Quality Estimatorcited by 19
  4. 2024Enhancing Blind Video Quality Assessment with Rich Quality-aware Featurescited by 19
  5. 2024Video Quality Assessment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 15
  6. 2022FAVER: Blind Quality Prediction of Variable Frame Rate Videoscited by 10
  7. 2025VQAThinker: Exploring Generalizable and Explainable Video Quality Assessment via Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
  8. 2022BVI-VFI: A Video Quality Database for Video Frame Interpolationcited by 7
  9. 2023HDR or SDR? A Subjective and Objective Study of Scaled and Compressed Videoscited by 7
  10. 2023HIDRO-VQA: High Dynamic Range Oracle for Video Quality Assessmentcited by 7
  11. 2025Generalizable Video Quality Assessment via Weak-to-Strong Learningcited by 5
  12. 2025Engagement Prediction of Short Videos with Large Multimodal Modelscited by 4
12 more
  1. 2021High Frame Rate Video Quality Assessment using VMAF and Entropic Differencescited by 3
  2. 2024Image and Video Quality Assessment using Prompt-Guided Latent Diffusion Models for Cross-Dataset Generalizationcited by 3
  3. 2024Quanta Video Restorationcited by 3
  4. 2022Making Video Quality Assessment Models Sensitive to Frame Rate Distortionscited by 2
  5. 2023SB-VQA: A Stack-Based Video Quality Assessment Framework for Video Enhancementcited by 2
  6. 2024Unsupervised Microscopy Video Denoisingcited by 2
  7. 2024MVAD: A Multiple Visual Artifact Detector for Video Streamingcited by 2
  8. 2024BVI-UGC: A Video Quality Database for User-Generated Content Transcodingcited by 2
  9. 2026QualiRAG: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Visual Quality Understandingcited by 2
  10. 2025CGVQM+D: Computer Graphics Video Quality Metric and Datasetcited by 1
  11. 2025LEHA-CVQAD: Dataset To Enable Generalized Video Quality Assessment of Compression Artifactscited by 1
  12. 2026Community-Aware Assessment of Social Textual Engagement and Resonance: A Human-Centric Perspective on User-Generated Content Evaluationcited by 0