mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Image Quality Assessment: Integrating Model-Centric and Data-Centric Approaches

arXiv 2207.14769 ↗First posted 29 Jul 2022cs.CVcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Learning-based image quality assessment (IQA) has made remarkable progress in the past decade, but nearly all consider the two key components -- model and data -- in isolation. Specifically, model-centric IQA focuses on developing ``better'' objective quality methods on fixed and extensively reused datasets, with a great danger of overfitting. Data-centric IQA involves conducting psychophysical experiments to construct ``better'' human-annotated datasets, which unfortunately ignores current IQA models during dataset creation. In this paper, we first design a series of experiments to probe computationally that such isolation of model and data impedes further progress of IQA. We then describe a computational framework that integrates model-centric and data-centric IQA. As a specific example, we design computational modules to quantify the sampling-worthiness of candidate images. Experimental results show that the proposed sampling-worthiness module successfully spots diverse failures of the examined blind IQA models, which are indeed worthy samples to be included in next-generation datasets.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2022.

Builds on

25 of 71 references.

References · 25

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  3. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  4. 2015Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classificationcited by 3,590
  5. 2020A Survey of Deep Active Learningcited by 547
  6. 2017NIMA: Neural Image Assessmentcited by 387
  7. 2019KonIQ-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessmentcited by 351
  8. 2019Learning Loss for Active Learningcited by 335
  9. 2019Blind Image Quality Assessment Using A Deep Bilinear Convolutional Neural Networkcited by 301
  10. 2016Deep Neural Networks for No-Reference and Full-Reference Image Quality Assessmentcited by 224
  11. 2019From Patches to Pictures (PaQ-2-PiQ): Mapping the Perceptual Space of Picture Qualitycited by 221
  12. 2015Massive Online Crowdsourced Study of Subjective and Objective Picture Qualitycited by 208
13 more
  1. 2017RankIQA: Learning from Rankings for No-reference Image Quality Assessmentcited by 150
  2. 2020Uncertainty-Aware Blind Image Quality Assessment in the Laboratory and Wildcited by 134
  3. 2019dipIQ: Blind Image Quality Assessment by Learning-to-Rank Discriminable Image Pairscited by 73
  4. 2020Norm-in-Norm Loss with Faster Convergence and Better Performance for Image Quality Assessmentcited by 54
  5. 2018Pool-Based Sequential Active Learning for Regressioncited by 33
  6. 2013Learning to Rank for Blind Image Quality Assessmentcited by 25
  7. 2020Active Fine-Tuning from gMAD Examples Improves Blind Image Quality Assessmentcited by 24
  8. 2018Deep Ensemble Bayesian Active Learning : Addressing the Mode Collapse issue in Monte Carlo dropout via Ensemblescited by 20
  9. 2021Troubleshooting Blind Image Quality Models in the Wildcited by 14
  10. 2020I Am Going MAD: Maximum Discrepancy Competition for Comparing Classifiers Adaptivelycited by 13
  11. 2021Subjective Image Quality Assessment with Boosted Triplet Comparisonscited by 9
  12. 2021Debiased Subjective Assessment of Real-World Image Enhancementcited by 7
  13. 2021Semi-Supervised Deep Ensembles for Blind Image Quality Assessmentcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

5 papers.