Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 12, pp 13859–13880 | Cite as

BIQWS: efficient Wakeby modeling of natural scene statistics for blind image quality assessment

  • Mohsen JenadelehEmail author
  • Mohsen Ebrahimi Moghaddam


In this paper, a universal blind image quality assessment (IQA) algorithm is proposed that works in presence of various distortions. The proposed algorithm is a Blind Image Quality metric based on Wakeby Statistics (BIQWS) which extracts local mean subtraction and contrast normalization (MSCN) coefficients in spatial domain from input image. The MSCN coefficients are used for generating a Wakeby distribution statistical model to extract quality-aware features. The statistical studies indicate that the MSCN coefficients histogram is altered in the presence of various distortions with different severities. These changes are regular and can be used to estimate the type of the distortion and its severity. We extended our previous studies to extract efficient Wakeby distribution model parameters which are more sensitive to changes in MSCN coefficients. These parameters are used to form a quality-aware feature vector. This feature vector is then fed to an SVM (support vector machine) regression model with a nonlinear Kernel to predict the quality score of the input image without any information about the distortion type or reference image. Experimental results show that the image quality index obtained by the proposed method has higher correlation with respect to human perceptual opinions and it is superior in some distortions when compared to some full-reference and other state-of-the-art blind image quality assessment methods.


Blind image quality assessment Natural scene statistics Wakeby distribution model Support vector machine 


  1. 1.
    Altous S, Samee MK, Gotze J (2011) Reduced reference image quality assessment for JPEG distortion. In 2011 ELMAR Proceedings, pp 97–100Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aydin TO, Smolic A, Gross M (2015) Automated aesthetic analysis of photographic images. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 21:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang C-C, Lin C-J (2011) Libsvm. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen Z, Jiang T, Tian Y (2014) Quality assessment for comparing image enhancement algorithms. In: 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp 3003–3010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chou HH, Hsu LY, Hu HT (2012) Turbulent-PSO-based fuzzy image filter with no-reference measures for high-density impulse noise. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 43:296–307Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding Y, Zhang H, Luo X, Dai H (2015) Blind image quality assessment based on fractal description of natural scenes. Electron Lett 51:338–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fang Y, Ma K, Wang Z, Lin W, Fang Z, Zhai G (2015) No-reference quality assessment of contrast-distorted images based on natural scene statistics. IEEE Signal Process Lett 22:838–842Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gu K, Zhai G, Yang X, Zhang W (2015) Using free energy principle for blind image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Multimedia 17:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guan J, Zhang W, Gu J, Ren H (2015) No-reference blur assessment based on edge modeling. J Vis Commun Image Represent 29:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horita Y, Shibata K, Kawayoke Y, Sazzad ZP (2011) Mict image quality evaluation database.
  11. 11.
    Hosking JR (1998) L-Moments. Encycl Stat SciGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hou W, Gao X, Tao D, Li X (2015) Blind image quality assessment via deep learning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 26:1275–1286MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huynh-Thu Q, Ghanbari M (2008) Scope of validity of PSNR in image/video quality assessment. Electron Lett 44:800–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenadeleh M, Moghaddam M (2015) Blind image quality assessment through Wakeby statistics model. Image analysis and recognition. In: Kamel M, Campilho A (eds), Springer International Publishing, vol. 9164, pp 14–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joshi D, Datta R, Fedorovskaya E, Luong QT, Wang JZ, Li J, et al. (2011) Aesthetics and Emotions in Images. IEEE Signal Process Mag 28:94–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson EC, Chandler DM (2010) Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. J Electron Imaging 19:011006-1–011006-21Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li L, Lin W, Wang X, Yang G, Bahrami K, Kot AC (2016) No-reference image blur assessment based on discrete orthogonal moments. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu D, Xu Y, Quan Y, Le Callet P (2014a) Reduced reference image quality assessment using regularity of phase congruency. Signal Process Image Commun 29:844–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu L, Dong H, Huang H, Bovik AC (2014b) No-reference image quality assessment in curvelet domain. Signal Process Image Commun 29:494–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu L, Liu B, Huang H, Bovik AC (2014c) No-reference image quality assessment based on spatial and spectral entropies. Signal Process Image Commun 29:856–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu F, Zhao Q, Yang G (2015) A no-reference image quality assessment approach based on steerable pyramid decomposition using natural scene statistics. Neural Comput & Applic 26:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marchesotti L, Perronnin F, Larlus D, Csurka G (2011) Assessing the aesthetic quality of photographs using generic image descriptors. In: International Conference on Computer Vision, pp 1784–1791Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mittal A, Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2012) No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:4695–4708MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2010) Statistics of natural image distortions. In: 2010 I.E. International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp 962–965Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:3350–3364MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muramatsu D, Makihara Y, Yagi Y (2016) View Transformation Model Incorporating Quality Measures for Cross-View Gait Recognition. IEEE Trans Cybern 46:1602–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Narvekar ND, Karam LJ (2011) A no-reference image blur metric based on the cumulative probability of blur detection (CPBD). IEEE Trans Image Process 20:2678–2683MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen P, Luong M, Beghdadi A (2010) Statistical analysis of image quality metrics for watermark transparency assessment. In: Qiu G, Lam K, Kiya H, Xue X-Y, Kuo CCJ, Lew M (eds) Advances in multimedia information processing - PCM 2010, vol 6297. Springer, Berlin, pp 685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nuutinen M, Virtanen T, Leisti T, Mustonen T, Radun J, Häkkinen J (2016) A new method for evaluating the subjective image quality of photographs: dynamic reference. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(4):2367–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oh T, Park J, Seshadrinathan K, Lee S, Bovik AC (2014) No-reference sharpness assessment of camerashaken images by analysis of spectral structure. IEEE Trans Image Process 23:5428–5439MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omari M, Hassouni M, Abdelouahad A, Cherifi H (2015) A statistical reduced-reference method for color image quality assessment. Multimedia Tools and Applications 74:8685–8701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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 Mod Radioelectron 10:30–45Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ponomarenko N, Ieremeiev O, Lukin V, Egiazarian K, Jin L, Astola J, et al. (2013) Color image database TID2013: Peculiarities and preliminary results. In: 2013 4th European Workshop on Visual Information Processing (EUVIP), pp 106–111Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. M. Rohaly, J. Libert, P. Corriveau, and A. Webster (2000) Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment, ITU-T Standards Contribution COM, pp 9–80Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saad MA, Bovik AC, Charrier C (2011) Model-based blind image quality assessment using natural DCT statistics. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:3339–3352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saad MA, Bovik AC, Charrier C (2012) Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:3339–3352MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schölkopf B, Smola AJ, Williamson RC, Bartlett PL (2000) New Support Vector Algorithms. Neural Comput 12:1207–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seshadrinathan K, Bovik A (2011) Automatic prediction of perceptual quality of multimedia signals—a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51:163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shao F, Lin W, Wang S, Jiang G, Yu M, Dai Q (2016) Learning receptive fields and quality lookups for blind quality assessment of stereoscopic images. IEEE Trans Cybern 46:730–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2006) Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process 15:430–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sheikh HR, Bovik AC, De Veciana G (2005) An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE Trans Image Process 14:2117–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sheikh HR, Sabir MF, Bovik AC (2006) A Statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Process 15:3440–3451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shen J, Li Q, Erlebacher G (2011) Hybrid no-reference natural image quality assessment of noisy, blurry, JPEG2000, and JPEG images. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:2089–2098MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shuhong J, Abdalmajeed S, Wei L, Ruxuan W (2014) Totally blind image quality assessment algorithm based on weibull statistics of natural scenes. Inf Technol J:13Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Soundararajan R, Bovik AC (2012) RRED indices: reduced reference entropic differencing for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:517–526MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tao D, Li X, Lu W, Gao X (2009) Reduced-reference IQA in contourlet domain. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 39:1623–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Traore A, Carre P, Olivier C (2014) Reduced-reference metric based on the quaternionic wavelet coefficients modeling by information criteria. In: 2014 I.E. International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp 526–530Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang Z, Simoncelli EP, Bovik AC (2003) Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In: Conference Record of the Thirty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2004, pp 1398–1402Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13:600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang J, Ding Z, Guo F, Wang H, Hughes N (2015a) A novel multivariate performance optimization method based on sparse coding and hyper-predictor learning. Neural Netw 71:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang J, Lin Y, Gao Z, Lv Z, Wei W, Song H (2015b) Quality index for stereoscopic images by separately evaluating adding and subtracting. PLoS One 10:e0145800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yang J, Zhou J, Fan D, Lv H (2016) Design of intelligent recognition system based on gait recognition technology in smart transportation. Multimed Tools Appl :1–14Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zaric A, Loncaric M, Tralic D, Brzica M, Dumic E, Grgic S (2010) Image quality assessment - comparison of objective measures with results of subjective test. In 2010 PROCEEDINGS ELMAR, pp 113–118Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhai G, Wu X, Yang X, Lin W, Zhang W (2012) A psychovisual quality metric in free-energy principle. IEEE Trans Image Process 21:41–52MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhang L, Zhang L, Mou X, Zhang D (2011) FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 20:2378–2386MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang L, Shen Y, Li H (2014) VSI: a visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 23:4270–4281MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhao S, Gao Y, Jiang X, Yao H, Chua T-S, Sun X (2014) Exploring principles-of-art features for image emotion recognition. Presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao B, Wang S, Deng C, Huang GB, Wang B (2015) Gradient-based no-reference image blur assessment using extreme learning machine. In Cao J, Mao K, Cambria E, Man Z, Toh KA (eds), Proceedings of ELM-2014 Volume 2. Springer International Publishing, vol. 4 pp 223–232Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and EngineeringShahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations