Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Survey on Image Quality Assessment: Insights, Analysis, and Future Outlook

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a universal image quality assessment method is impractical because different application scenarios demand conflicting quality criteria, so the field should move toward scenario-specific, user-oriented metrics.

desk verdict A readable but not comprehensive IQA survey whose scenario-specificity thesis is argued more than demonstrated; usable as an entry point, not as a definitive reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08540 v1 pith:MXAVWI4B submitted 2025-02-12 cs.CV

Chengqian Ma , Zhengyi Shi , Zhiqiang Lu , Shenghao Xie , Fei Chao , Yao Sui This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imagequalityassessmentIQAsurveyscenario-specificblindfull-referencedeeplearningperceptualmetricsPSNRandSSIM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey argues that no universal image quality assessment (IQA) method can serve all application scenarios, because different scenes impose conflicting quality criteria. It reaches this conclusion by organizing the field into general-purpose methods and scenario-specific methods, and by showing how the same distortion can be acceptable or even desirable in one context and unacceptable in another. A sympathetic reader should care because the claim redirects the field's research agenda: instead of chasing a single metric that works everywhere, IQA should be designed per application, from the user's perspective, with attention to practicality and interpretability. The survey also observes that despite progress in deep learning, traditional metrics like PSNR and SSIM remain the most used, precisely because they are simple and interpretable.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the survey's scenario taxonomy, which splits IQA methods into general-scene methods (statistical, HVS-based, transform-domain, NSS-based, and machine-learning approaches) and specific-scene methods (medical, dehazing, portrait, and specific distortions). The taxonomy does conceptual work: by placing methods side by side, it exposes that their evaluation criteria are not commensurable. The load-bearing contrast is the same distortion receiving opposite valuations in different scenes, such as motion blur being aesthetically acceptable in portraits but diagnostically harmful in medical images, which drives the conclusion that quality criteria must be derived from the image user's perspective.

What would settle it

Take a general-purpose IQA model and specialized IQA models for medical imaging, dehazing, and portraiture, and evaluate all of them on human opinion scores from each domain; if one general model ranks first in every domain or matches the specialized models everywhere, the claim that universal IQA is impractical would be refuted. A weaker falsifier would be finding a single quality criterion (for example, sharpness or structural fidelity) that human raters consistently prioritize across all these domains regardless of scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that "proposing a universal IQA method applicable across all scenarios is impractical, as different scenes demand contrasting quality criteria." The evidence comes from reviewing IQA methods in medical imaging, dehazing, portrait photography, blur, and JPEG compression: medical imaging prioritizes lesion visibility and local topology, portraits prioritize the facial region and aesthetics, dehazing evaluation must account for contrast and color adjustment, and deblurring evaluation must detect artifacts like ringing. In each case, a generic metric misses what actually matters for the user. The paper therefore concludes that future IQA should be scenario-specific and user-centric, and that deep learning metrics will only see adoption if they become more interpretable and easier to use, not merely more accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The survey assumes that the scenarios it reviews—medical imaging, dehazing, portraits, blur, and JPEG compression—are representative enough that their conflicting criteria generalize to all possible image applications; if other domains such as video, point clouds, or AI-generated images turn out to share one compatible quality standard, the case against universal IQA weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IQA research should shift from designing one universal metric to designing per-scenario metrics, with evaluation criteria derived from the user's task.
  • Adoption of deep-learning IQA methods will depend on improving interpretability and ease of deployment, since the field still leans on PSNR and SSIM for those reasons.
  • Specialized metrics should be built around the distortions and artifacts that matter in each application, such as ringing in deblurring, contrast and color changes in dehazing, and facial-region quality in portraits.
  • Quality criteria should be defined from the perspective of image users, for example aesthetic criteria like composition and lighting for aesthetic evaluation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the argument implies that leaderboard-style comparisons of general IQA metrics across mixed datasets may be measuring the wrong target, since the criteria themselves shift by scenario.
  • Beyond the paper: a testable extension would be constructing paired metrics with identical architectures, one specialized for medical images and one for portraits, and measuring how much cross-scenario agreement drops; the paper's claim predicts a large drop.
  • Beyond the paper: the survey's examples leave out video, point clouds, and AI-generated images; testing whether those domains also demand dedicated quality criteria would either extend or bound the impracticality claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys image quality assessment (IQA) methods, organizing them into general-scene methods (statistical and machine-learning based, further split into model- and framework-based approaches) and specific-scene methods (medical imaging, dehazing, portrait, blur, and JPEG artifacts). It provides bibliographic tables with citation counts, chronological figures, and a taxonomy in Figure 1. The survey's central thesis is stated in Section 3: proposing a universal IQA method applicable to all scenarios is impractical, so the field should move toward scenario-specific, user-oriented, and interpretable metrics. The paper reports no new algorithms, experiments, or benchmark comparisons, and its conclusions are derived from the reviewed literature and the authors' own commentary.

Significance. The survey has a useful organizing principle—application scenario rather than distortion type or architecture—and it collects recent work, including NTIRE challenge entries, that is not always covered in earlier surveys. The chronological figures and citation tables provide a convenient starting point for newcomers to the field. However, the significance of the central claim is limited by its evidentiary basis: the claim is a universal negative about the entire IQA field, but the paper reviews only a small set of scenario families and does not include standard benchmark evidence or several widely used general-purpose metrics. Because the conclusion is framed as a field-level prescription, these omissions are not cosmetic. If the gaps are addressed, the survey could serve as a valuable roadmap; in its current form, the practical conclusion is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (and Sections 2.2–2.3)] The central claim that a universal IQA method is impractical is a universal negative, but the support offered is limited to the specific scene methods reviewed in Section 2.2 (medical, dehazing, portrait, blur, JPEG) and a single motion-blur/medical counterexample. No benchmark evidence is provided: the paper never compares general-purpose metrics against specialized methods on standard datasets such as LIVE, TID2013, KADID, or PIPAL, and it does not discuss cross-scenario generalization results of methods such as UNIQUE (cited in Section 2.1) that were specifically designed to generalize across distortions. As stated, the claim is not supported by the selected examples. Either the claim should be weakened to "different scenarios impose different requirements that need to be considered in metric design," or the paper should add a comparative analysis showing failure of general-purpose metrics on representative scenarios.
  2. [Section 3, first paragraph] The paper states that "the predominant IQA methods in use continue to be the traditional PSNR and SSIM, primarily due to simplicity and interpretability." PSNR and SSIM are universal, content-agnostic metrics; if they remain the de facto standard, the assertion that a universal method is impractical requires qualification. The term "universal" is also never defined: it could mean a single fixed scalar criterion, a family of metrics sharing a common backbone, or a benchmark protocol. Multi-task or conditional architectures—e.g., a shared representation with scenario-specific regression heads—are not discussed, even though they would represent a middle ground between fully universal and fully bespoke methods. This ambiguity is load-bearing because the paper's final recommendation depends on ruling out such designs.
  3. [Section 2.1, HVS-Based Methods] The description of FSIM states that it "selects phase congruency and gradient deviation (GD) as predictive features of quality." FSIM actually uses phase congruency and gradient magnitude (GM). This is a factual error in a core method description and should be corrected; the same paragraph's discussion of GMSD and PSIM already refers to gradient magnitude, so the inconsistency is internal.
  4. [Section 2.1, Tables 5–8] Several widely used general-purpose methods are absent from the taxonomy. NIQE (Mittal et al., 2013) does not appear in Table 5 or in the discussion of NR methods, even though it is one of the most common no-reference baselines; LPIPS appears only as a citation to [Zhang et al., 2018] for the value of deep features and is not named or classified as a perceptual metric. Given that the survey's thesis rests on a contrast between general and specific methods, omitting standard general-purpose baselines makes the contrast incomplete. A survey that explicitly aims for comprehensiveness should cover these methods and, ideally, report their benchmark performance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The VSNR citation [Chandler and Hemami, ] is missing its publication year in both the text and the reference list; the reference also lacks volume and page information.
  2. [References] Several citations use the placeholder form "and et al." (e.g., [Bosse and et al., 2017], [Egiazarian and et al., 2006]) rather than naming the first author and co-authors; this will cause formatting and indexing problems.
  3. [Table 5] If the table is intended as a representative selection rather than an exhaustive list, the caption should say so; the absence of NIQE is otherwise conspicuous for a survey of NR-IQA methods.
  4. [Section 2.1, NSS-Based Methods] The acronym IFC is used without expansion; the reader must infer that it stands for Information Fidelity Criterion.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] Some entries in the figures use different naming conventions than the corresponding table entries, and the bracket notation explained in the captions is applied inconsistently; aligning the figure labels with the tables would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the survey's scenario-specificity conclusion is an interpretive summary of cited examples, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey and contains no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, no equations, and no quantitative predictions. The central claim—that proposing a universal IQA method across all scenarios is impractical—is presented as a commentary drawn from the surveyed examples (e.g., medical imaging prioritizing lesion visibility versus portrait photography emphasizing aesthetics) and from cited specialized metrics. There is no step in which an output quantity is defined in terms of an input quantity, no parameter fitted to a subset of data and then 'predicted' on a closely related quantity, and no load-bearing invocation of a result from the authors' own prior work. The authors do not cite their own papers in support of the claim; the closest references are unrelated authors with similar surnames (e.g., Kede Ma et al. 2017, Shaolin Su et al. 2020). Whether the argument's sample of scenarios is representative is a question of evidential support, not of circularity: the reviewer's concern that the survey omits general-purpose benchmarks and comparative evidence is a correctness/rigor concern, not a self-referential reduction. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the paper is a literature review.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The selected methods and application scenarios are representative of the IQA field.
    The survey's comprehensiveness claim depends on the selection being representative; methods like NIQE and LPIPS, and all benchmark datasets, are omitted.
  • domain assumption Application-scenario is the appropriate organizing principle for comparing IQA methods.
    The survey structures the entire review around this taxonomy but does not justify it against alternatives such as distortion type or algorithm family.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Image Quality Assessment: Insights, Analysis, and Future Outlook." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXAVWI4B

@misc{pith2026250208540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Image Quality Assessment: Insights, Analysis, and Future Outlook},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXAVWI4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08540}
}
read the original abstract

Image quality assessment (IQA) represents a pivotal challenge in image-focused technologies, significantly influencing the advancement trajectory of image processing and computer vision. Recently, IQA has witnessed a notable surge in innovative research efforts, driven by the emergence of novel architectural paradigms and sophisticated computational techniques. This survey delivers an extensive analysis of contemporary IQA methodologies, organized according to their application scenarios, serving as a beneficial reference for both beginners and experienced researchers. We analyze the advantages and limitations of current approaches and suggest potential future research pathways. The survey encompasses both general and specific IQA methodologies, including conventional statistical measures, machine learning techniques, and cutting-edge deep learning models such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and Transformer models. The analysis within this survey highlights the necessity for distortion-specific IQA methods tailored to various application scenarios, emphasizing the significance of practicality, interpretability, and ease of implementation in future developments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classification of IQA Methods. review of recent IQA advancements, focusing on different ap￾plication scenarios to offer a comprehensive overview of the field. IQA can be classified into two categories: subjective IQA (SIQA) and objective IQA (OIQA). SIQA relies on human evaluators and is further subdivided by the presence or ab￾sence of a reference image. In single stimulus rating [Series, 2012], evaluators assign s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Publication Times of HVS-based Methods, Transform Domain-based Methods, NSS-based Methods and Traditional Machine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Publication Times of CNN-Based Methods, Transformer-Based Methods, Framework-Based Methods, Specific Scene Methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Advancing Fetal Ultrasound Image Quality Assessment in Low-Resource Settings

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LoRA fine-tuning of FetalCLIP achieves F1 0.757 for fetal ultrasound frame-quality classification, and a thresholded segmentation variant reaches F1 0.771.

  2. Modeling Beyond MOS: Quality Assessment Models Must Integrate Context, Reasoning, and Multimodality

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper contending that multimedia quality assessment should move beyond scalar Mean Opinion Score toward context-aware, explainable, and multimodal modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Dynamic range independent image quality as- sessment

    [Aydin et al., 2008] Tunc ¸ Ozan Aydin, Hans-Peter Seidel, and et al. Dynamic range independent image quality as- sessment. ACM TOG, 27(3):1–10,

    work page 2008

  2. [13]

    A fast reli- able image quality predictor by fusing micro-and macro- structures

    [Gu et al., 2017] Ke Gu, Weisi Lin, and et al. A fast reli- able image quality predictor by fusing micro-and macro- structures. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , 64(5):3903–3912,

    work page 2017

  3. [14]

    Iqma network: Image quality multi-scale assessment net- work

    [Guo et al., 2021] Haiyang Guo, Hengliang Luo, and et al. Iqma network: Image quality multi-scale assessment net- work. In CVPR, pages 443–452,

    work page 2021

  4. [15]

    Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment

    [Kang et al., 2014] Le Kang, David Doermann, and et al. Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment. In CVPR, June

    work page 2014

  5. [17]

    Fully deep blind image quality predictor

    [Kim and Lee, 2016] Jongyoo Kim and Sanghoon Lee. Fully deep blind image quality predictor. IEEE JSTSP , 11(1):206–220,

    work page 2016

  6. [21]

    Sparse representation-based image quality index with adaptive sub-dictionaries

    [Li et al., 2016] Leida Li, Xingming Sun, and et al. Sparse representation-based image quality index with adaptive sub-dictionaries. IEEE TIP, 25(8):3775–3786,

    work page 2016

  7. [22]

    Hallucinated-iqa: No-reference image quality assessment via adversarial learning

    [Lin and Wang, 2018] Kwan-Yee Lin and Guanxiang Wang. Hallucinated-iqa: No-reference image quality assessment via adversarial learning. In CVPR, pages 732–741,

    work page 2018

  8. [23]

    Deepfl-iqa: Weak supervision for deep iqa feature learn- ing

    [Lin et al., 2020] Hanhe Lin, Dietmar Saupe, and et al. Deepfl-iqa: Weak supervision for deep iqa feature learn- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08113,

    arXiv 2020

Show all 63 references
  1. [24]

    Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity

    [Liu et al., 2011] Anmin Liu, Manish Narwaria, and et al. Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity. IEEE TIP, 21(4):1500–1512,

    2011

  2. [27]

    A paraboost method to image quality assessment

    [Liu et al., 2015] Tsung-Jung Liu, C-C Jay Kuo, and et al. A paraboost method to image quality assessment. IEEE TNNLS, 28(1):107–121,

    2015

  3. [28]

    Rankiqa: Learning from rankings for no-reference image quality assessment

    [Liu et al., 2017] Xialei Liu, Andrew D Bagdanov, and et al. Rankiqa: Learning from rankings for no-reference image quality assessment. In ICCV, pages 1040–1049,

    2017

  4. [29]

    Photo and video quality evaluation: Focusing on the subject

    [Luo and Tang, 2008] Yiwen Luo and Xiaoou Tang. Photo and video quality evaluation: Focusing on the subject. In ECCV, pages 386–399. Springer,

    2008

  5. [30]

    End- to-end blind image quality assessment using deep neural networks

    [Ma et al., 2017] Kede Ma, Wangmeng Zuo, and et al. End- to-end blind image quality assessment using deep neural networks. IEEE TIP, 27(3):1202–1213,

    2017

  6. [31]

    Image quality assessment using con- trastive learning

    [Madhusudana et al., 2022] Pavan C Madhusudana, Alan C Bovik, and et al. Image quality assessment using con- trastive learning. IEEE TIP, 31:4149–4161,

    2022

  7. [32]

    Quality evaluation of image dehazing methods using syn- thetic hazy images

    [Min et al., 2019] Xiongkuo Min, Wenjun Zhang, and et al. Quality evaluation of image dehazing methods using syn- thetic hazy images. IEEE TMM, 21(9):2319–2333,

    2019

  8. [34]

    Blind image quality assessment: From natural scene statistics to perceptual quality

    [Moorthy and Bovik, 2011] Anush Krishna Moorthy and Alan Conrad Bovik. Blind image quality assessment: From natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE TIP, 20(12):3350–3364,

    2011

  9. [35]

    Quan- titative assessment of structural image quality

    [Rosen et al., 2018] Adon FG Rosen, others, and et al. Quan- titative assessment of structural image quality. Neuroim- age, 169:407–418,

    2018

  10. [36]

    Ntire 2021 challenge on perceptual image quality assessment

    [Royat et al., 2021] Ali Royat, others, and et al. Ntire 2021 challenge on perceptual image quality assessment. In CVPR. IEEE,

    2021

  11. [37]

    Blind image quality assessment: A natural scene statistics approach in the dct domain

    [Saad et al., 2012] Michele A Saad, Christophe Charrier, and et al. Blind image quality assessment: A natural scene statistics approach in the dct domain. IEEE TIP , 21(8):3339–3352,

    2012

  12. [38]

    Re- iqa: Unsupervised learning for image quality assessment in the wild

    [Saha et al., 2023] Avinab Saha, Alan C Bovik, and et al. Re- iqa: Unsupervised learning for image quality assessment in the wild. In CVPR, pages 5846–5855,

    2023

  13. [40]

    Image information and visual quality

    [Sheikh and Bovik, 2006] Hamid R Sheikh and Alan C Bovik. Image information and visual quality. IEEE TIP, 15(2):430–444,

    2006

  14. [41]

    An information fidelity criterion for image qual- ity assessment using natural scene statistics

    [Sheikh et al., 2005] Hamid R Sheikh, Gustavo De Veciana, and et al. An information fidelity criterion for image qual- ity assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE TIP , 14(12):2117–2128,

    2005

  15. [43]

    Blindly assess image quality in the wild guided by a self- adaptive hyper network

    [Su et al., 2020] Shaolin Su, Yanning Zhang, and et al. Blindly assess image quality in the wild guided by a self- adaptive hyper network. In CVPR,

    2020

  16. [44]

    A survey of image quality measures

    [Thung and Raveendran, 2009] Kim-Han Thung and Paramesran Raveendran. A survey of image quality measures. In 2009 International Conference for Technical Postgraduates (TECHPOS), pages 1–4,

    2009

  17. [45]

    Multi-pooled inception fea- tures for no-reference image quality assessment

    [Varga, 2020] Domonkos Varga. Multi-pooled inception fea- tures for no-reference image quality assessment. Appl. Sci., 10(6):2186,

    2020

  18. [46]

    Informa- tion content weighting for perceptual image quality assess- ment

    [Wang and Li, 2010] Zhou Wang and Qiang Li. Informa- tion content weighting for perceptual image quality assess- ment. IEEE TIP, 20(5):1185–1198,

    2010

  19. [47]

    Reduced-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural image statistic model

    [Wang and Simoncelli, 2005] Zhou Wang and Eero P Si- moncelli. Reduced-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural image statistic model. In HVEI, volume 5666, pages 149–159. SPIE,

    2005

  20. [48]

    Why is image quality assessment so difficult? In ICASSP, vol- ume 4, pages IV–3313

    [Wang et al., 2002] Zhou Wang, Ligang Lu, and et al. Why is image quality assessment so difficult? In ICASSP, vol- ume 4, pages IV–3313. IEEE,

    2002

  21. [52]

    No- reference/blind image quality assessment: A survey

    [Xu et al., 2017] Shaoping Xu, Weidong Min, and et al. No- reference/blind image quality assessment: A survey. IETE Technical Review, 34:223 – 245,

    2017

  22. [53]

    A survey of dnn methods for blind image quality assessment

    [Yang et al., 2019] Xiaohan Yang, Hantao Liu, and et al. A survey of dnn methods for blind image quality assessment. IEEE Access, 7:123788–123806,

    2019

  23. [54]

    Maniqa: Multi-dimension attention network for no-reference image quality assessment

    [Yang et al., 2022] Sidi Yang, Yujiu Yang, and et al. Maniqa: Multi-dimension attention network for no-reference image quality assessment. In CVPR, pages 1191–1200,

    2022

  24. [55]

    Objective quality assessment of tone-mapped im- ages

    [Yeganeh and Wang, 2012] Hojatollah Yeganeh and Zhou Wang. Objective quality assessment of tone-mapped im- ages. IEEE TIP, 22(2):657–667,

    2012

  25. [56]

    Content-variant reference image quality assessment via knowledge distillation

    [Yin et al., 2022] Guanghao Yin, Changhu Wang, and et al. Content-variant reference image quality assessment via knowledge distillation. In AAAI, volume 36, pages 3134– 3142,

    2022

  26. [57]

    Transformer for image quality assessment

    [You and Korhonen, 2021] Junyong You and Jari Korhonen. Transformer for image quality assessment. In ICIP, pages 1389–1393. IEEE,

    2021

  27. [58]

    Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assess- ment

    [Zhang et al., 2011] Lin Zhang, David Zhang, and et al. Fsim: A feature similarity index for image quality assess- ment. IEEE TIP, 20(8):2378–2386,

    2011

  28. [59]

    Vsi: A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assessment

    [Zhang et al., 2014] Lin Zhang, Hongyu Li, and et al. Vsi: A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE TIP, 23(10):4270–4281,

    2014

  29. [60]

    A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator

    [Zhang et al., 2015] Lin Zhang, Alan C Bovik, and et al. A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator. IEEE TIP, 24(8):2579–2591,

    2015

  30. [61]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a per- ceptual metric

    [Zhang et al., 2018] Richard Zhang, Oliver Wang, and et al. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a per- ceptual metric. In CVPR, pages 586–595,

    2018

  31. [62]

    Cnn-based medical ultrasound image quality assess- ment

    [Zhang et al., 2021a] Siyuan Zhang, Wenguang Hou, and et al. Cnn-based medical ultrasound image quality assess- ment. Complexity, 2021(1):9938367,

    2021

  32. [63]

    Metaiqa: Deep meta-learning for no-reference image qual- ity assessment

    [Zhu et al., 2020] Hancheng Zhu, Guangming Shi, and et al. Metaiqa: Deep meta-learning for no-reference image qual- ity assessment. In CVPR, pages 14143–14152, 2020

    2020

  33. [2002]

    Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assess- ment

    [Wang et al., 2003] Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, and et al. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assess- ment. In ACSSC, volume 2, pages 1398–1402. Ieee,

    2003

  34. [2003]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    [Wang et al., 2004] Zhou Wang, Eero P Simoncelli, and et al. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE TIP, 13(4):600–612,

    2004

  35. [2004]

    A universal image quality index

    [Wang, 2002] Zhou Wang. A universal image quality index. IEEE SPL, 9(3):81–84,

    2002

  36. [2005]

    An svd-based grayscale im- age quality measure for local and global assessment.IEEE TIP, 15(2):422–429,

    [Shnayderman et al., 2006] Aleksandr Shnayderman, Ah- met M Eskicioglu, and et al. An svd-based grayscale im- age quality measure for local and global assessment.IEEE TIP, 15(2):422–429,

    2006

  37. [2006]

    A no-reference objective image sharpness metric based on the notion of just noticeable blur (jnb)

    [Ferzli and Karam, 2009] Rony Ferzli and Lina J Karam. A no-reference objective image sharpness metric based on the notion of just noticeable blur (jnb). IEEE TIP , 18(4):717–728,

    2009

  38. [2007]

    No-reference image quality assessment via transformers, relative ranking, and self-consistency

    [Golestaneh et al., 2022] S Alireza Golestaneh, Kris M Ki- tani, and et al. No-reference image quality assessment via transformers, relative ranking, and self-consistency. In WACV, pages 1220–1230,

    2022

  39. [2008]

    Deep neural networks for no-reference and full-reference image quality assessment

    [Bosse and et al., 2017] Sebastian Bosse and et al. Deep neural networks for no-reference and full-reference image quality assessment. IEEE TIP, 27(1):206–219,

    2017

  40. [2009]

    Blind image quality assessment through anisotropy

    [Gabarda and Crist´obal, 2007] Salvador Gabarda and Gabriel Crist ´obal. Blind image quality assessment through anisotropy. JOSA A, 24(12):B42–B51,

    2007

  41. [2010]

    No- reference image blur assessment based on discrete orthog- onal moments

    [Li et al., 2015] Leida Li, Alex C Kot, and et al. No- reference image blur assessment based on discrete orthog- onal moments. IEEE TCYB, 46(1):39–50,

    2015

  42. [2011]

    Image quality assessment using multi-method fusion

    [Liu et al., 2012] Tsung-Jung Liu, C-C Jay Kuo, and et al. Image quality assessment using multi-method fusion. IEEE TIP, 22(5):1793–1807,

    2012

  43. [2012]

    A no-reference metric for evaluating the quality of motion deblurring

    [Liu et al., 2013] Yiming Liu, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and et al. A no-reference metric for evaluating the quality of motion deblurring. ACM TOG,

    2013

  44. [2013]

    Perceptual image quality assessment with transformers

    [Cheon et al., 2021] Manri Cheon, Junwoo Lee, and et al. Perceptual image quality assessment with transformers. In CVPR, pages 433–442,

    2021

  45. [2014]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    [Ke et al., 2021] Junjie Ke, Feng Yang, and et al. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In ICCV, pages 5148–5157,

    2021

  46. [2015]

    Ntire 2022 chal- lenge on perceptual image quality assessment

    [Gu and et al., 2022] Jinjin Gu and et al. Ntire 2022 chal- lenge on perceptual image quality assessment. In CVPR, pages 951–967,

    2022

  47. [2016]

    Deep cnn-based blind image quality predictor

    [Kim et al., 2018] Jongyoo Kim, Sanghoon Lee, and et al. Deep cnn-based blind image quality predictor. IEEE TNNLS, 30(1):11–24,

    2018

  48. [2017]

    Deep portrait quality assessment

    [Chahine et al., 2024] Nicolas Chahine, others, and et al. Deep portrait quality assessment. a ntire 2024 challenge survey. In CVPR, pages 6732–6744,

    2024

  49. [2018]

    Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy

    [Larson and Chandler, 2010] Eric C Larson and Damon M Chandler. Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. JEI,

    2010

  50. [2019]

    No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain

    [Mittal et al., 2012] Anish Mittal, Alan Conrad Bovik, and et al. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE TIP, 21(12):4695–4708,

    2012

  51. [2020]

    New full-reference quality metrics based on hvs

    [Egiazarian and et al., 2006] Karen Egiazarian and et al. New full-reference quality metrics based on hvs. In Pro- ceedings of the second international workshop on video processing and quality metrics, volume 4, page 4,

    2006

  52. [2021]

    Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity

    [Ding et al., 2020] Keyan Ding, Eero P Simoncelli, and et al. Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity. IEEE TPAMI, 44(5):2567–2581,

    2020

  53. [2022]

    Full reference image quality metrics for jpeg compressed im- ages

    [Gore and Gupta, 2015] Akshay Gore and Savita Gupta. Full reference image quality metrics for jpeg compressed im- ages. AEU-International Journal of Electronics and Com- munications, 69(2):604–608,

    2015

  54. [2023]

    Methodology for the subjective as- sessment of the quality of television pictures

    [Series, 2012] B Series. Methodology for the subjective as- sessment of the quality of television pictures. ITU-R BT, 500(13),

    2012

  55. [2024]

    Vsnr: A wavelet-based visual signal-to-noise ratio for natural images

    [Chandler and Hemami, ] Damon M Chandler and Sheila S Hemami. Vsnr: A wavelet-based visual signal-to-noise ratio for natural images. IEEE TIP, (9):2284–2298. [Chang et al., 2013] Hua-Wen Chang, Ming-Hui Wang, and et al. Sparse feature fidelity for perceptual image quality asse...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.