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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lubin J, Fibush D (1997) Sarnoff JND vision model p 97
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
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
Narwaria M, Lin W (2009) Scalable image quality assessment based on structural vectors In: Proceeding of IEEE workshop on multimedia signal processing (MMSP)
Eckert MP, Bradley AP (1998) Perceptual quality metrics applied to still image compression. Signal Process 70:177–200
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
Winkler S (1999) A perceptual distortion metric for digital color video. Proc. SPIE 3644:175–184
Wang Z, Shang X (2006) Spatial pooling strategies for perceptual image quality assessment. In: IEEE International conference of image processing, Sept 2006
Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2009) Visual importance pooling for image quality assessment. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):193–201
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
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
Moorthy A, Bovik A (2009) Visual importance pooling for image quality assessment. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 3(2):193–201
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
Larson E, Vu C, Chandler D (2008) Can visual fixation patterns improve image quality assessment? In: Proceeding of IEEE ICIP2008, pp 2572–2575
Ma Q, Zhang L (2008) Image quality assessment with visual attention. In: Proceeding of ICPR, 8–11 Dec 2008, pp 1–4
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
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
Jia Y, Lin W, Kassim AA (2006) Estimating just-noticeable distortion for video. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 16(7):820–829
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
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
Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(12):3350–3364
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
Ye P, Doermann D (2012) No-reference image quality assessment using visual codebooks. IEEE Trans Image Proces 21(7):3129–3138
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
Mittal A, Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2012) No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(12):4695–4708
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
Mittal A, Soundararajan R, Bovik AC (2013) Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Process Lett 20(3):209–212
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
Scholkopf B, Smola A (2002) Learning with kernels. MIT Press, Cambridge
Chang C, Lin C (2001) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/cjlin/libsvm/
Li H (2011) Learning to rank for information retrieval and natural language processing. Synth Lect Hum Lang Technol 4(1):1–113
Liu T (2009) Learning to rank for information retrieval. Found Trends Inform Retrieval 3(3):225–331
Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Sci New Seri 10(2684):677–680
ITU-R Recommendation BT. 500–511 (2002) Methodology of subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures
ITU-T Recommendation P.910 (2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications
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
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
David H (1988) The method of paired comparisons, 2nd edn. Hodder Arnold, London
Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273–286
Torgerson W (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. Wiley, New York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Heinrich_Webercite_note-history-5
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
Cossock D, Zhang T (2006) Subset ranking using regression. COLT’06: Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on learning theory, pp 605–619
Herbrich R , Graepel T, Obermayer K (2000) Large Margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. MIT Press, Cambridge
Freund Y, Iyer RD, Schapire RE, Singer Y (2003) An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J Mach Learn Res 4:933–969
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
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
LIVE Image Quality Database. http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/subjective.htm
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
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
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
Ninassi A, Le Callet P, Autrusseau F (2005) Subjective quality assessment-IVC database. http://www2.irccyn.ecnantes.fr/ivcdb
Horita Y, Shibata K, Kawayoke Y, Sazzad ZMP (2000) MICT Image quality evaluation database. http://mict.eng.u-toyama.ac.jp/mict/index2.html
Chandler DM, Hemami SS (2007) A57 Database. http://foulard.ece.cornell.edu/dmc27/vsnr/vsnr.html
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
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
Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2006) Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(2):430–444
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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)