mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Deep Perceptual Similarity is Adaptable to Ambiguous Contexts

arXiv 2304.02265 ↗First posted 5 Apr 2023cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The concept of image similarity is ambiguous, and images can be similar in one context and not in another. This ambiguity motivates the creation of metrics for specific contexts. This work explores the ability of deep perceptual similarity (DPS) metrics to adapt to a given context. DPS metrics use the deep features of neural networks for comparing images. These metrics have been successful on datasets that leverage the average human perception in limited settings. But the question remains if they could be adapted to specific similarity contexts. No single metric can suit all similarity contexts, and previous rule-based metrics are labor-intensive to rewrite for new contexts. On the other hand, DPS metrics use neural networks that might be retrained for each context. However, retraining networks takes resources and might ruin performance on previous tasks. This work examines the adaptability of DPS metrics by training ImageNet pretrained CNNs to measure similarity according to given contexts. Contexts are created by randomly ranking six image distortions. Distortions later in the ranking are considered more disruptive to similarity when applied to an image for that context. This also gives insight into whether the pretrained features capture different similarity contexts. The adapted metrics are evaluated on a perceptual similarity dataset to evaluate if adapting to a ranking affects their prior performance. The findings show that DPS metrics can be adapted with high performance. While the adapted metrics have difficulties with the same contexts as baselines, performance is improved in 99% of cases. Finally, it is shown that the adaption is not significantly detrimental to prior performance on perceptual similarity. The implementation of this work is available online: https://github.com/LTU-Machine-Learning/Analysis-of-Deep-Perceptual-Loss-Networks

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2023.

Builds on

15 of 34 references.

References · 15

  1. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  2. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
  3. 2016Perceptual Losses for Real-Time Style Transfer and Super-Resolutioncited by 2,694
  4. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
  5. 2016SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and <0.5MB model sizecited by 1,060
  6. 2020A Survey on Contrastive Self-supervised Learningcited by 554
  7. 2015Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metriccited by 407
  8. 2014One weird trick for parallelizing convolutional neural networkscited by 264
  9. 2018Why do deep convolutional networks generalize so poorly to small image transformations?cited by 198
  10. 2017Beyond the Pixel-Wise Loss for Topology-Aware Delineationcited by 83
  11. 2019E-LPIPS: Robust Perceptual Image Similarity via Random Transformation Ensemblescited by 45
  12. 2022Do better ImageNet classifiers assess perceptual similarity better?cited by 34
3 more
  1. 2023A Systematic Performance Analysis of Deep Perceptual Loss Networks: Breaking Transfer Learning Conventionscited by 11
  2. 2022A study of deep perceptual metrics for image quality assessmentcited by 5
  3. 2022Identifying and Mitigating Flaws of Deep Perceptual Similarity Metricscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.