Learning Quality from Complexity and Structure: A Feature-Fused XGBoost Model for Video Quality Assessment

Amritha Premkumar; Prajit T Rajendran; Vignesh V Menon

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Learning Quality from Complexity and Structure: A Feature-Fused XGBoost Model for Video Quality Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact 8-vector of complexity residuals and SSIM, fed to XGBoost, predicts video quality with a PLCC of 0.787—outperforming PSNR and approaching VMAF and P.1204.3.

desk verdict The reduced-reference claim breaks because the SSIM feature needs the full reference at inference; the actual result is for a full-reference system, and the rest is a competent but thin engineering exercise. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09795 v1 pith:IP4KOQQG submitted 2025-06-11 cs.MM

Amritha Premkumar , Prajit T Rajendran , Vignesh V Menon This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.MM

keywords videoqualityassessmentreduced-referenceComplexityAnalyzerSSIMXGBoostregressionspatio-temporalfeaturesperceptualpredictionstreamingmonitoring

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 paper tries to show that video quality can be predicted with a small, interpretable set of handcrafted features instead of deep networks or full-reference pixels. It extracts seven spatio-temporal complexity values per frame with the Video Complexity Analyzer, averages them over time, and computes residual differences between reference and test videos. Adding the mean SSIM between reference and test frames yields an 8-dimensional vector that an XGBoost regressor maps to a subjective quality score. On the VQA Grand Challenge test set the model reaches a Pearson correlation of 0.787, beating PSNR and approaching VMAF and P.1204.3 at roughly one-third of VMAF's runtime. The appeal is that streaming or edge systems could estimate perceived quality cheaply, with interpretable features and no GPU.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fused feature vector $z = [r \mid \mu_{\text{SSIM}}] \in \mathbb{R}^8$, where $r = \bar{x} - \bar{\hat{x}}$ is the difference between temporally averaged VCA feature vectors and $\mu_{\text{SSIM}}$ is the frame-averaged SSIM. VCA supplies seven handcrafted per-frame features—luma texture energy, gradient magnitude, luminance, and chroma complexity terms—that act as empirical embeddings of source and channel statistics. The identity doing the work is $r \approx$ information loss: with Gaussian feature distributions, $\frac{1}{2}\|r\|_2^2$ approximates the KL divergence between reference and distorted distributions, and SSIM is invoked as a lower bound on normalized mutual information. XGBoost, a gradient-boosted ensemble of decision trees, supplies the nonlinear regression $f(z) \to$ quality score, and SHAP analysis identifies the luma-energy residual $r_E$ as the most influential feature.

What would settle it

Run the challenge test set with the SSIM component removed, keeping only the seven VCA residuals; if the Pearson correlation falls below PSNR-Y's 0.677, the structural term is load-bearing and the method is effectively near-full-reference rather than reduced-reference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that predictions of perceived video quality can be carried by an eight-dimensional vector whose entries are temporally averaged Video Complexity Analyzer features, their residuals between reference and test videos, and the mean SSIM between reference and test frames. The residual vector $r$ is interpreted as a proxy for information loss because, under Gaussian assumptions, $\frac{1}{2}\|r\|_2^2$ approximates the Kullback–Leibler divergence between reference and distorted feature statistics, while $\mu_{\text{SSIM}}$ is treated as an estimate of normalized mutual information. XGBoost then learns the empirical mapping from this compressed mutual-information approximation to subjective scores. On the VQA Grand Challenge test set the model reaches a PLCC of 0.787 and SROCC of 0.832, outperforming PSNR-Y (0.677) and approaching VMAF (0.901) and P.1204.3 (0.935) at roughly one-third of VMAF's computational time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing structural signal is the SSIM term, which is computed between reference and distorted frames; if only compact reference features are transmitted, SSIM cannot be computed and the model degrades to the seven-dimensional residual vector alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Video streaming pipelines can monitor perceptual quality in near real time: the method needs no GPU and runs in about one-third of VMAF's time, close to PSNR's runtime.
Adaptive bitrate controllers can rank candidate encodings by predicted quality using only VCA statistics and SSIM, making per-chunk decisions feasible.
Engineers get interpretable diagnostics: SHAP analysis shows which complexity dimension (notably luma energy residual) drives a quality drop, pointing to the cause of degradation.
The approach extends to HDR and SDR content within the challenge's BT.2020/PQ gamut, indicating the handcrafted features transfer across dynamic range.

Reading between the lines

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

A truly reduced-reference deployment would need to drop the SSIM term, since it requires reference pixels; if SSIM is removed, the model reduces to a 7-dimensional residual regressor, and its edge over PSNR may shrink—an implicit limitation of the paper's reduced-reference framing.
The residual-as-KL-divergence proxy suggests a saturation prediction: quality estimates should flatten as residual magnitudes grow, a shape that could be inspected directly in XGBoost's learned trees.
Because luma-energy residual dominates importance, distortions that preserve DCT energy (semantic edits, temporal aliasing) may escape the model; adding motion or semantic features is a testable extension.
The same residual-fusion recipe could be applied to other feature families, such as learned embeddings or VMAF's sub-metrics, to test whether the complexity residual plus structural similarity is the general mechanism.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know up front: the method is not reduced-reference as advertised, and the reported PLCC of 0.787 belongs to a full-reference system. The SSIM feature in Eq. 7 is computed between reference and distorted frames, which means the full reference video is required at inference. The figure confirms it. So the streaming-monitoring story they sell is not what they built.

What is actually new: the specific combination of VCA residual features, SSIM, and XGBoost for VQA is a reasonable engineering blend. It is lightweight, interpretable, and runs fast. The empirical result beats PSNR on their test set, though it is well below VMAF and P.1204.3. The SHAP analysis is a useful addition.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The SSIM issue is not a framing quibble; it changes the deployment scenario. The information-theoretic framing in Eqs. 6 and 8 is decorative—those formulas are asserted without proof and the XGBoost regression never uses them. The evaluation is thin: one test-set number, no error bars, underspecified train/validation/test protocol, and no comparisons with other reduced-reference or no-reference metrics. No code or data is shipped. The limitation section admits needing reference complexity features but omits that SSIM needs the full reference, so the reduced-reference claim survives only in name.

To be fair, the rest of the method is internally coherent, and the paper is reasonably organized. The citation pattern is mostly appropriate, including self-citations to the authors' VCA tool, which is legitimate. But the central contribution is misrepresented as reduced-reference when it is actually full-reference. The result could be salvaged by reframing as full-reference and benchmarking against VMAF/PSNR in that category, or by replacing SSIM with a genuinely reduced-reference structural feature and re-evaluating.

This is a workshop-grade paper that needs major revision. The reader who cares about lightweight VQA for streaming might get a useful idea from the feature combination, but should not rely on the reduced-reference claim. A serious referee could help the authors fix the framing and add the missing comparisons, so I would not desk-reject it. But acceptance in the current form would be a mistake.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reduced-reference video quality assessment model that combines seven VCA complexity features with a mean SSIM value, feeds the residual between reference and distorted feature averages plus SSIM into an XGBoost regressor, and reports SROCC 0.832, PLCC 0.787, KROCC 0.632, and RMSE 0.862 on the VQA Grand Challenge test set. The authors claim the system requires only partial reference-side information, is lightweight and interpretable, and outperforms PSNR while approaching VMAF and P.1204.3.

Significance. If the reduced-reference claim were actually realized, the approach would be practically relevant for streaming monitoring and adaptive encoding, since it is simple, fast, and does not require deep learning or GPU inference. The comparison against PSNR, VMAF, and P.1204.3 is transparent, and the SHAP analysis provides a useful interpretability check. However, as written, the central contribution is not supported: the SSIM feature requires the full reference video at inference time, so the evaluated system is full-reference rather than reduced-reference. The information-theoretic justification is asserted rather than derived and is not used by the model. The performance gap to VMAF and P.1204.3 is also larger than the text suggests, and the evaluation lacks uncertainty quantification, so the empirical claims are weaker than presented.

major comments (4)

[3.5, Eq. (7), Fig. 1, Sec. 4.6] The SSIM feature μ_SSIM is defined as the average SSIM between reference and distorted frames, and Fig. 1 labels the input 'SSIM (Ref vs Test)'. Computing SSIM requires pixel-level statistics from the pristine reference video at inference time. Therefore the fused vector z=[r | μ_SSIM] in Eq. (9) cannot be formed under the advertised reduced-reference constraint. Section 4.6 acknowledges only the need for reference complexity features and omits this SSIM requirement. This is load-bearing: the reported PLCC of 0.787 applies to a system that uses the full reference, not to the claimed RR system, and the deployment scenarios in the abstract and conclusion are exactly those where a full reference is typically unavailable.
[3.4-3.5, Eqs. (6), (8)] The information-theoretic equations are asserted without proof and are not used by the regression. Equation (6) is also not correct in the stated form: for Gaussian feature distributions, the KL divergence equals (1/2)(Δμ)^T Σ^{-1} (Δμ), which reduces to (1/2)||r||_2^2 only for identity covariance. Equation (8) is presented as a known result, but the cited reference [21] does not establish that SSIM is a lower bound on normalized mutual information. Since these equations are presented as the grounding for the residual and SSIM features, they need to be correctly derived and justified or removed from the paper.
[4.1, 4.4] The train/validation/test protocol is underspecified: the paper states that 360 training videos and 198 test videos are used, but it does not describe how the validation set for Optuna was constructed, whether it was disjoint from the test set, or whether hyperparameters were selected on the same test set. The reported SROCC, PLCC, KROCC, and RMSE values are single-run point estimates with no confidence intervals, bootstrap error bars, or significance tests, making it impossible to assess whether the observed difference from PSNR is reliable.
[4.4, Table 2, Conclusion] The claim that the method 'approaches' the performance of VMAF and P.1204.3 is not supported by Table 2: PLCC is 0.787 versus 0.901 for VMAF and 0.935 for P.1204.3, a gap of 0.11-0.15, and SROCC is 0.832 versus 0.905 and 0.925. The qualitative language overstates the results and should be revised to a factual statement of the gap.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract, 3.5] The abstract says SSIM is computed 'from the test video', while Eq. (7) computes SSIM between reference and distorted frames; please align the descriptions.
[4.1] The text first says '31 open-sourced contents' and then says '20 open-sourced videos' are used for training; clarify the dataset split and the role of the remaining 11 contents.
[4.2] Hyperparameter names such as 'n estimators' and 'colsample bytree' should be formatted as 'n_estimators' and 'colsample_bytree', and the search range should be reported as a complete sentence.
[Table 2] 'P1204 3' should be 'P.1204.3', and the corresponding reference [14] should be cited at the table caption.
[4.5] The runtime comparison lacks implementation details such as software version, CPU model, measured overhead, and the breakdown between VCA and SSIM computation; report actual timings rather than only a relative fraction.
[Reproducibility] The paper has no code or data availability statement; given that the challenge dataset is public, a code release would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the XGBoost quality predictor is a supervised empirical fit evaluated on held-out challenge data; the information-theoretic framing is decorative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: define Y ∝ I(X; X̂) (Eq. 1); use VCA features and SSIM as 'MI proxies'; compute residuals r = x̄ - x̂ (Eq. 5) and μ_SSIM (Eq. 7); fuse z = [r | μ_SSIM] (Eq. 9); train XGBoost f(z) (Eq. 10) on subjective MOS. The final prediction is not obtained from the information-theoretic equations; those equations are motivational analogies only. The actual predictor is a fitted regression model, and its reported PLCC is computed on a held-out challenge test set against external anchors (P.1204.3, VMAF, PSNR-Y in Table 2). Hence no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity is defined in terms of another quantity it is supposed to predict. The self-citations to VCA ([7], [19]) are used as a black-box feature extractor, not as the source of the quality estimate; the paper's empirical claim stands or falls on the test-set correlation, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The 'SSIM ≈ normalized mutual information' statement (Eq. 8) is an external citation ([21]) and is not used to derive the regression target. A real non-circularity concern is the reduced-reference claim. Eq. 7 averages pixel-level SSIM between reference and distorted frames, which requires full reference frames at inference, while Section 4.6 only acknowledges needing reference complexity features. This mismatch affects whether the evaluated system is truly RR, but it is not a circular derivation: if SSIM were dropped, the remaining 7-D residual model would still be a conventional supervised fit. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard ML components plus the authors' own VCA features and SSIM. The main added assumptions are the information-theoretic interpretations, which are not used in the actual regression and are not proven. The XGBoost hyperparameters are fitted to validation data. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

XGBoost hyperparameters = n_estimators=95, max_depth=8, learning_rate=0.072, subsample=0.999, colsample_bytree=0.852
These hyperparameters were fitted via Optuna on a validation set to maximize PCC (Section 4.2). They are data-dependent and not derived from theory.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Residual feature differences approximate information loss (Eq. 5-6).
The relation D_KL approx 1/2 ||r||^2 is asserted for Gaussian feature distributions, but feature distributions are not shown to be Gaussian, and the residual is only a mean difference, not a distributional comparison.
ad hoc to paper SSIM approximates normalized mutual information (Eq. 8).
Cited to [21], but [21] proposes an information fidelity criterion, not an equivalence between SSIM and mutual information; this is an unproven mapping used to justify including SSIM.
domain assumption Handcrafted low-level features capture sufficient information for quality prediction.
The approach assumes VCA complexity features plus SSIM are sufficient to predict perceived quality across distortion types; acknowledged as a limitation in Section 4.6.
domain assumption Subjective scores on the challenge dataset are reliable ground truth.
The evaluation treats the provided subjective scores as accurate labels, which is standard but unverified here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Quality from Complexity and Structure: A Feature-Fused XGBoost Model for Video Quality Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IP4KOQQG

@misc{pith2026250609795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Quality from Complexity and Structure: A Feature-Fused XGBoost Model for Video Quality Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IP4KOQQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09795}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel approach for reduced-reference video quality assessment (VQA), developed as part of the recent VQA Grand Challenge. Our method leverages low-level complexity and structural information from reference and test videos to predict perceptual quality scores. Specifically, we extract spatio-temporal features using Video Complexity Analyzer (VCA) and compute SSIM values from the test video to capture both texture and structural characteristics. These features are aggregated through temporal pooling, and residual features are calculated by comparing the original and distorted feature sets. The combined features are used to train an XGBoost regression model that estimates the overall video quality. The pipeline is fully automated, interpretable, and highly scalable, requiring no deep neural networks or GPU inference. Experimental results on the challenge dataset demonstrate that our proposed method achieves competitive correlation with subjective quality scores while maintaining a low computational footprint. The model's lightweight design and strong generalization performance suit real-time streaming quality monitoring and adaptive encoding scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[21]

Image information and vi- sual quality,

H. Sheikh and A. Bovik, “Image information and vi- sual quality,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 430–444, 2006

work page 2006
[1]

Ensuring a consistent and satisfactory user experience requires accurate and scalable Video Qual- ity Assessment (VQA) models in such heterogeneous envi- ronments

INTRODUCTION The rapid growth of online video streaming services and user- generated content platforms has led to an exponential increase in video consumption across diverse networks, devices, and screen resolutions [1]. Ensuring a consistent and satisfactory user experience requires accurate and scalable Video Qual- ity Assessment (VQA) models in such he...

work page
[2]

RELA TED WORK VQA is a critical task in multimedia systems, aiming to esti- mate the perceptual quality of video content. Existing VQA approaches are broadly classified into three categories: full- arXiv:2506.09795v1 [cs.MM] 11 Jun 2025 reference (FR), reduced-reference (RR), and no-reference (NR) [9], depending on the amount of access to the original und...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[3]

PROPOSED METHOD In this section, we present our proposed reduced-reference video quality assessment (VQA) framework, grounded in principles from information theory. The method is composed of five stages: (1) VCA-based feature extraction, (2) tempo- ral feature averaging, (3) residual computation, (4) structural quality modeling via SSIM, and (5) nonlinear...

work page
[4]

Dataset The Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) lab at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin (sponsored by Amazon Prime Video) created the dataset provided for this challenge

EV ALUA TION 4.1. Dataset The Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) lab at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin (sponsored by Amazon Prime Video) created the dataset provided for this challenge. It contained 54 pristine, high-quality source videos. These videos include 31 open-source videos from the 8K HDR A VT-VQDB-UHD- 2-HDR dataset, 10 Video on Demand (V o...

work page 2020
[5]

The proposed method fuses handcrafted low-level complexity fea- tures extracted via VCA with structural quality cues obtained from SSIM statistics

CONCLUSION This paper presented a lightweight, interpretable RR-VQA framework developed for the VQA Grand Challenge. The proposed method fuses handcrafted low-level complexity fea- tures extracted via VCA with structural quality cues obtained from SSIM statistics. By computing residuals between refer- ence and distorted video features, the model effective...

work page
[6]

Cisco visual networking index: Forecast and methodology, 2017–2022 (White Paper),

Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Forecast and methodology, 2017–2022 (White Paper),” 2019

work page 2017
[7]

Transcoding Quality Prediction for Adaptive Video Streaming,

V . V . Menonet al., “Transcoding Quality Prediction for Adaptive Video Streaming,” inProceedings of the 2nd Mile-High Video Conference, 2023, p. 103–109

work page 2023

Show all 33 references

[8]

On the Computation of PSNR for a Set of Images or Video,

O. Keleset al., “On the Computation of PSNR for a Set of Images or Video,” in2021 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 2021, pp. 1–5

2021
[9]

Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM,

A. Hor ´e and D. Ziou, “Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM,” in2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2010, pp. 2366–2369

2010
[10]

Visual quality assessment: recent devel- opments, coding applications and future trends,

T.-J. Liuet al., “Visual quality assessment: recent devel- opments, coding applications and future trends,” inAP- SIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Process- ing, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. e4

2013
[11]

Quality-Aware Dynamic Resolu- tion Adaptation Framework for Adaptive Video Stream- ing,

A. Premkumaret al., “Quality-Aware Dynamic Resolu- tion Adaptation Framework for Adaptive Video Stream- ing,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Sys- tems Conference, 2024, p. 292–298

2024
[12]

Green Video Complexity Analysis for Efficient Encoding in Adaptive Video Streaming,

V . V . Menonet al., “Green Video Complexity Analysis for Efficient Encoding in Adaptive Video Streaming,” inProceedings of the First International Workshop on Green Multimedia Systems, 2023, p. 16–18. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3593908.3593942

2023
[13]

XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,

T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining. Association for Computing Machinery, Aug. 2016, pp. 785–794

2016
[14]

Perceptual visual quality metrics: A survey,

W. Lin and C.-C. J. Kuo, “Perceptual visual quality metrics: A survey,”Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 297–312,
[15]

FUNQUE: Fusion of Unified Quality Evaluators,

A. K. Venkataramanan, C. Stejerean, and A. C. Bovik, “FUNQUE: Fusion of Unified Quality Evaluators,”
[16]

Encoder-Quantization-Motion-based Video Quality Metrics,

Y . Chen, Z. Shang, H. Wei, Y . Wu, and S. Sethuraman, “Encoder-Quantization-Motion-based Video Quality Metrics,” in2024 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 2024, pp. 1–5

2024
[17]

Fourier Transform-Based Scalable Image Quality Measure,

M. Narwariaet al., “Fourier Transform-Based Scalable Image Quality Measure,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 3364–3377, 2012

2012
[18]

Modern Image Quality Assessment,

Z. Wang and A. C. Bovik, “Modern Image Quality Assessment,”Synthesis Lectures on Image, Video, and Multimedia Processing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–156, 2006

2006
[19]

Reduce-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural im- age statistic model,

Z. Wang and E. Simoncelli, “Reduce-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural im- age statistic model,”Proceedings of SPIE - The Inter- national Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 5666, 03 2005

2005
[20]

Bitstream-Based Model Standard for 4K/UHD: ITU-T P.1204.3 — Model Details, Evalu- ation, Analysis and Open Source Implementation,

R. R. R. Raoet al., “Bitstream-Based Model Standard for 4K/UHD: ITU-T P.1204.3 — Model Details, Evalu- ation, Analysis and Open Source Implementation,” in 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2020, pp. 1–6

2020
[22]

HDRSDR-VQA: A Subjective Video Quality Dataset for HDR and SDR Comparative Evaluation,

B. Chenet al., “HDRSDR-VQA: A Subjective Video Quality Dataset for HDR and SDR Comparative Evaluation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/2505.21831

2025 arXiv
[23]

The Konstanz natural video database (KoNViD-1k),

V . Hosuet al., “The Konstanz natural video database (KoNViD-1k),” in2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

2017
[24]

YouTube UGC Dataset for Video Compression Research,

Y . Wang, S. Inguva, and B. Adsumilli, “YouTube UGC Dataset for Video Compression Research,” in 2019 IEEE 21st International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), Sep. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/mmsp.2019.8901772

2019
[25]

Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures,

Z. Wang and A. C. Bovik, “Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 98–117, 2009

2009
[26]

JND-aware Two-pass Per- title Encoding Scheme for Adaptive Live Streaming,

V . V . Menonet al., “JND-aware Two-pass Per- title Encoding Scheme for Adaptive Live Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, pp. 1–1, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2023.3290725

2023
[27]

No- reference image quality assessment in the spatial do- main,

A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik, “No- reference image quality assessment in the spatial do- main,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 4695–4708, 2012

2012
[30]

Optuna: A Next-generation Hyper- parameter Optimization Framework,

T. Akibaet al., “Optuna: A Next-generation Hyper- parameter Optimization Framework,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10902

2019 arXiv
[31]

A review of fea- ture selection methods with applications,

A. Jovi ´c, K. Brki´c, and N. Bogunovi´c, “A review of fea- ture selection methods with applications,” in2015 38th International Convention on Information and Commu- nication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), 2015, pp. 1200–1205

2015
[32]

Statistical analysis, evaluation and reporting guidelines of quality measurements (ITU-T P.1401),

ITU-T, “Statistical analysis, evaluation and reporting guidelines of quality measurements (ITU-T P.1401),”
[2011]

Available: https://www.sciencedirect

[Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1047320311000204
[2020]

Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/ T-REC-P.1401/en

[Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/rec/ T-REC-P.1401/en
[2022]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202. 11241

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Image information and vi- sual quality,

H. Sheikh and A. Bovik, “Image information and vi- sual quality,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 430–444, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [1]

Ensuring a consistent and satisfactory user experience requires accurate and scalable Video Qual- ity Assessment (VQA) models in such heterogeneous envi- ronments

INTRODUCTION The rapid growth of online video streaming services and user- generated content platforms has led to an exponential increase in video consumption across diverse networks, devices, and screen resolutions [1]. Ensuring a consistent and satisfactory user experience requires accurate and scalable Video Qual- ity Assessment (VQA) models in such he...

work page

[3] [2]

RELA TED WORK VQA is a critical task in multimedia systems, aiming to esti- mate the perceptual quality of video content. Existing VQA approaches are broadly classified into three categories: full- arXiv:2506.09795v1 [cs.MM] 11 Jun 2025 reference (FR), reduced-reference (RR), and no-reference (NR) [9], depending on the amount of access to the original und...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

PROPOSED METHOD In this section, we present our proposed reduced-reference video quality assessment (VQA) framework, grounded in principles from information theory. The method is composed of five stages: (1) VCA-based feature extraction, (2) tempo- ral feature averaging, (3) residual computation, (4) structural quality modeling via SSIM, and (5) nonlinear...

work page

[5] [4]

Dataset The Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) lab at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin (sponsored by Amazon Prime Video) created the dataset provided for this challenge

EV ALUA TION 4.1. Dataset The Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) lab at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin (sponsored by Amazon Prime Video) created the dataset provided for this challenge. It contained 54 pristine, high-quality source videos. These videos include 31 open-source videos from the 8K HDR A VT-VQDB-UHD- 2-HDR dataset, 10 Video on Demand (V o...

work page 2020

[6] [5]

The proposed method fuses handcrafted low-level complexity fea- tures extracted via VCA with structural quality cues obtained from SSIM statistics

CONCLUSION This paper presented a lightweight, interpretable RR-VQA framework developed for the VQA Grand Challenge. The proposed method fuses handcrafted low-level complexity fea- tures extracted via VCA with structural quality cues obtained from SSIM statistics. By computing residuals between refer- ence and distorted video features, the model effective...

work page

[7] [6]

Cisco visual networking index: Forecast and methodology, 2017–2022 (White Paper),

Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Forecast and methodology, 2017–2022 (White Paper),” 2019

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Transcoding Quality Prediction for Adaptive Video Streaming,

V . V . Menonet al., “Transcoding Quality Prediction for Adaptive Video Streaming,” inProceedings of the 2nd Mile-High Video Conference, 2023, p. 103–109

work page 2023