mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Analysis of Deep Image Quality Models

arXiv 2302.13345 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2023cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Subjective image quality measures based on deep neural networks are very related to models of visual neuroscience. This connection benefits engineering but, more interestingly, the freedom to optimize deep networks in different ways, make them an excellent tool to explore the principles behind visual perception (both human and artificial). Recently, a myriad of networks have been successfully optimized for many interesting visual tasks. Although these nets were not specifically designed to predict image quality or other psychophysics, they have shown surprising human-like behavior. The reasons for this remain unclear. In this work, we perform a thorough analysis of the perceptual properties of pre-trained nets (particularly their ability to predict image quality) by isolating different factors: the goal (the function), the data (learning environment), the architecture, and the readout: selected layer(s), fine-tuning of channel relevance, and use of statistical descriptors as opposed to plain readout of responses. Several conclusions can be drawn. All the models correlate better with human opinion than SSIM. More importantly, some of the nets are in pair of state-of-the-art with no extra refinement or perceptual information. Nets trained for supervised tasks such as classification correlate substantially better with humans than LPIPS (a net specifically tuned for image quality). Interestingly, self-supervised tasks such as jigsaw also perform better than LPIPS. Simpler architectures are better than very deep nets. In simpler nets, correlation with humans increases with depth as if deeper layers were closer to human judgement. This is not true in very deep nets. Consistently with reports on illusions and contrast sensitivity, small changes in the image environment does not make a big difference. Finally, the explored statistical descriptors and concatenations had no major impact.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2023.

Builds on

15 of 26 references.

References · 15

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  3. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
  4. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
  5. 2019EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6,442
  6. 2018Unsupervised Representation Learning by Predicting Image Rotationscited by 1,591
  7. 2016Unsupervised Learning of Visual Representations by Solving Jigsaw Puzzlescited by 1,382
  8. 2016Colorful Image Colorizationcited by 1,114
  9. 2018Deep Clustering for Unsupervised Learning of Visual Featurescited by 1,028
  10. 2020Image Quality Assessment: Unifying Structure and Texture Similaritycited by 811
  11. 2021Rethinking and Improving the Robustness of Image Style Transfercited by 48
  12. 2022Do better ImageNet classifiers assess perceptual similarity better?cited by 34
3 more
  1. 2021Contrast Sensitivity Functions in Autoencoderscited by 13
  2. 2021On the relation between statistical learning and perceptual distancescited by 12
  3. 2019PerceptNet: A Human Visual System Inspired Neural Network for Estimating Perceptual Distancecited by 9

Built on by

Not cited yet.