mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

BAND-2k: Banding Artifact Noticeable Database for Banding Detection and Quality Assessment

arXiv 2311.17752 ↗First posted 29 Nov 2023cs.CV cs.DB cs.MMcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Banding, also known as staircase-like contours, frequently occurs in flat areas of images/videos processed by the compression or quantization algorithms. As undesirable artifacts, banding destroys the original image structure, thus degrading users' quality of experience (QoE). In this paper, we systematically investigate the banding image quality assessment (IQA) problem, aiming to detect the image banding artifacts and evaluate their perceptual visual quality. Considering that the existing image banding databases only contain limited content sources and banding generation methods, and lack perceptual quality labels (i.e. mean opinion scores), we first build the largest banding IQA database so far, named Banding Artifact Noticeable Database (BAND-2k), which consists of 2,000 banding images generated by 15 compression and quantization schemes. A total of 23 workers participated in the subjective IQA experiment, yielding over 214,000 patch-level banding class labels and 44,371 reliable image-level quality ratings. Subsequently, we develop an effective no-reference (NR) banding evaluator for banding detection and quality assessment by leveraging frequency characteristics of banding artifacts. A dual convolutional neural network is employed to concurrently learn the feature representation from the high-frequency and low-frequency maps, thereby enhancing the ability to discern banding artifacts. The quality score of a banding image is generated by pooling the banding detection maps masked by the spatial frequency filters. Experiments demonstrate that our banding evaluator achieves a remarkably high accuracy in banding detection and also exhibits high SRCC and PLCC results with the perceptual quality labels. These findings unveil the strong correlations between the intensity of banding artifacts and the perceptual visual quality, thus validating the necessity of banding quality assessment.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Nov 2023.

Builds on

17 of 59 references.

References · 17

  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. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,029
  5. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  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. 2019Blind Image Quality Assessment Using A Deep Bilinear Convolutional Neural Networkcited by 301
  9. 2015Massive Online Crowdsourced Study of Subjective and Objective Picture Qualitycited by 208
  10. 2021No-Reference Image Quality Assessment via Transformers, Relative Ranking, and Self-Consistencycited by 165
  11. 2016HyperFace: A Deep Multi-task Learning Framework for Face Detection, Landmark Localization, Pose Estimation, and Gender Recognitioncited by 103
  12. 2021Blind Quality Assessment for in-the-Wild Images via Hierarchical Feature Fusion and Iterative Mixed Database Trainingcited by 71
5 more
  1. 2022Attentions Help CNNs See Better: Attention-based Hybrid Image Quality Assessment Networkcited by 57
  2. 2017VideoSet: A Large-Scale Compressed Video Quality Dataset Based on JND Measurementcited by 33
  3. 2020BBAND Index: A No-Reference Banding Artifact Predictorcited by 19
  4. 2021CAMBI: Contrast-aware Multiscale Banding Indexcited by 9
  5. 2022Banding vs. Quality: Perceptual Impact and Objective Assessmentcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3.

5 papers.