Skip to main content

Feature Pooling by Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Visual Quality Assessment by Machine Learning

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering ((BRIEFSSIGNAL))

  • 1394 Accesses

Abstract

In learning-based image quality assessment, images are represented by features with low dimension much less than the size of image. The features can be obtained by the aid of priori knowledge that people have gained; for example, the aforementioned basic and advantage features. There is also increasing interest in learning-based features which are co-trained along with the learning tasks. For example, the so-called “deep learning” techniques are studied extensively recently to learn a task-oriented feature. Feature extraction and selection are performed to construct more efficient features of image by compressing the length of feature vectors in order to reduce computational complexity and, more importantly, to avoid overfitting risk as the small number of samples are used in training process. After feature extraction and selection, we need to map image features onto image quality value which is a real-scale number. This process is called “pooling” in the literature which is a kind of function of linear or nonlinear form. For example, summing up all quadratic components of a feature vector would come up with a real number that may represent image quality for some scenarios. This chapter encompasses several state-of-the-art pooling methods in machine learning approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lubin J, Fibush D (1997) Sarnoff JND vision model p 97

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eskicioglu AM, Gusev A, Shnayderman A (2006) An SVD-based gray-scale image quality measure for local and global assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(2):422–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Karunasekera SA, Kingsbury NG (1995) A distortion measure for blocking artifacts in images based on human visual sensitivity. IEEE Trans Image Process 4(6):713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Narwaria M, Lin W (2009) Scalable image quality assessment based on structural vectors In: Proceeding of IEEE workshop on multimedia signal processing (MMSP)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eckert MP, Bradley AP (1998) Perceptual quality metrics applied to still image compression. Signal Process 70:177–200

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Watson AB, Hu J, McGowan III JF (2001) DVQ: a digital video quality metric based on human vision. J Electron Imaging 10(1):20–29

    Google Scholar 

  7. Winkler S (1999) A perceptual distortion metric for digital color video. Proc. SPIE 3644:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang Z, Shang X (2006) Spatial pooling strategies for perceptual image quality assessment. In: IEEE International conference of image processing, Sept 2006

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2009) Visual importance pooling for image quality assessment. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Engelke U, Kusuma M, Zepernick HJ, Caldera M (2009) Reducedreference metric design for objective perceptual quality assessment in wireless imaging. Signal Process Image Commun 24(7):525–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. You J, Perkis A, Hannuksela M, Gabbouj M (2009) Perceptual quality assessment based on visual attention analysis. In: Proceeding of ACM international conference mutlimedia, Beijing, China, 19–24 Oct 2009, pp 561–564

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moorthy A, Bovik A (2009) Visual importance pooling for image quality assessment. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ninassi A, Le Meur O, Le Callet P, Barbba D (2007) Does where you gaze on an image affect your perception of quality? applying visual attention to image quality metric. In: Proceeding of IEEE ICIP, pp II-169–II-172

    Google Scholar 

  14. Larson E, Vu C, Chandler D (2008) Can visual fixation patterns improve image quality assessment? In: Proceeding of IEEE ICIP2008, pp 2572–2575

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ma Q, Zhang L (2008) Image quality assessment with visual attention. In: Proceeding of ICPR, 8–11 Dec 2008, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engelke U, Nguyen VX, Zepernick H (2008) Regional attention to structural degradations for perceptual image quality metric design. In: Proceeding of ICASSP2008, pp 869–872

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oelbaum T, Keimel C, Diepold K (2009) Rule-based no-refaerence video quality evaluation using additionally coded videos. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):294–303

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jia Y, Lin W, Kassim AA (2006) Estimating just-noticeable distortion for video. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 16(7):820–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Narwaria M, Lin WS (2012) SVD-based quality metric for image and video using machine learning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 42(2):347–364

    Google Scholar 

  20. Xu L, Lin WS, Li J, Fang YM, Yan YH (2014) Rank learning on training set selection and quality assessment. In: ICME2014, 14–18 July 2004, Chengdu, China

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(12):3350–3364

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Tang H, Joshi N, Kapoor A (2011) Learning a blind measure of perceptual image quality. In: Proceeding of IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). Colorado Springs

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ye P, Doermann D (2012) No-reference image quality assessment using visual codebooks. IEEE Trans Image Proces 21(7):3129–3138

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Saad M, Bovik AC, Charrier C (2012) Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(8):3339–3352

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Mittal A, Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2012) No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(12):4695–4708

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Mittal A, Muralidhar GS, Ghosh J, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment without human training using latent quality factors. IEEE Signal Process Lett 19:75–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mittal A, Soundararajan R, Bovik AC (2013) Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Process Lett 20(3):209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Robinson J, Kecman V (2003) Combining support vector machine learning with the discrete cosine transform in image compression. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 14(4):950–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Scholkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with kernels. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chang C, Lin C (2001) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/cjlin/libsvm/

  31. Li H (2011) Learning to rank for information retrieval and natural language processing. Synth Lect Hum Lang Technol 4(1):1–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu T (2009) Learning to rank for information retrieval. Found Trends Inform Retrieval 3(3):225–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Sci New Seri 10(2684):677–680

    Google Scholar 

  34. ITU-R Recommendation BT. 500–511 (2002) Methodology of subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures

    Google Scholar 

  35. ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications

    Google Scholar 

  36. Carterette B, Bennett PN, Chickering DM, Dumais ST (2008) Here or there: preference judgments for relevance. In: Proceeding of the IR research, 30th European conference on advances in information retrieval, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 16–27

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chen K-T, Wu C-C, Chang Y-C, Lei C-L (2009) A crowdsourceable QoE evaluation framework for multimedia content. In: Proceeding of the 17th ACM international conference on multimedia, pp 491–500

    Google Scholar 

  38. David H (1988) The method of paired comparisons, 2nd edn. Hodder Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Torgerson W (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Heinrich_Webercite_note-history-5

  42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Theodor_Fechner

  43. Xu Q, Yao Y, Jiang T, Huang Q, Lin W, Yan B (2012) Hodgerank on random graphs for subjective video quality assessment. IEEE Trans Multimedia 14(3):844–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cossock D, Zhang T (2006) Subset ranking using regression. COLT’06: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on learning theory, pp 605–619

    Google Scholar 

  45. Herbrich R , Graepel T, Obermayer K (2000) Large Margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. Freund Y, Iyer RD, Schapire RE, Singer Y (2003) An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J Mach Learn Res 4:933–969

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Burges C, Shaked T, Renshaw E, Lazier A, Deeds M, Hamilton N, Hullender G (2005) Learning to rank using gradient descent. ICML’05: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on machine learning, pp 89–96

    Google Scholar 

  48. Xia F, Liu TY, Wang J (2008) Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on machine learning, ACM, July 2008, pp 1192–1199

    Google Scholar 

  49. LIVE Image Quality Database. http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/subjective.htm

  50. Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. PAMI, special issue Learn Deep Archit 8(35):1798–1828

    Google Scholar 

  51. Li J, Tian YH, Huang TJ, Gao W (2010) Cost-sensitive rank learning from positive and unlabeled data for visual saliency estimation. IEEE Signal Process Lett 17(6):591–594

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ponomarenko N, Lukin V, Zelensky A, Egiazarian K, Carli M, Battisti F (2009) TID2008-A database for evaluation of full-reference visual quality assessment metrics. Adv Modern Radioelectron 10:30–45

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ninassi A, Le Callet P, Autrusseau F (2005) Subjective quality assessment-IVC database. http://www2.irccyn.ecnantes.fr/ivcdb

  54. Horita Y, Shibata K, Kawayoke Y, Sazzad ZMP (2000) MICT Image quality evaluation database. http://mict.eng.u-toyama.ac.jp/mict/index2.html

  55. Chandler DM, Hemami SS (2007) A57 Database. http://foulard.ece.cornell.edu/dmc27/vsnr/vsnr.html

  56. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP, Bovik AC (2003) Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: Proceeding of Asilomar conference on signals, system computing, vol 2, pp 1398–1402

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2006) Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(2):430–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Long Xu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Xu, L., Lin, W., Kuo, CC.J. (2015). Feature Pooling by Learning. In: Visual Quality Assessment by Machine Learning. SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering(). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-468-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-468-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-287-467-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-287-468-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics