Distorted Representation Space Characterization Through Backpropagated Gradients

Dogancan Temel; Ghassan AlRegib; Gukyeong Kwon; Mohit Prabhushankar

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Distorted Representation Space Characterization Through Backpropagated Gradients

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Backpropagated weight gradients, not activations, reveal how far a distorted image has drifted from the learned representation manifold.

desk verdict Genuinely new gradient-as-feature idea with real empirical wins, but the IQA score is an unexplained heuristic and the OOD setup is underspecified; worth a serious review, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09998 v1 pith:DNUB75EX submitted 2019-08-27 cs.CV eess.IV

Gukyeong Kwon , Mohit Prabhushankar , Dogancan Temel , Ghassan AlRegib This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords backpropagatedgradientsrepresentationspaceimagequalityassessmentout-of-distributionclassificationautoencodergradientfeaturesCURE-TSRTID2013

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 argues that the gradients a network produces during backpropagation at test time are a useful directional signature of how distorted an input is, even though those gradients are not used to update the weights. Using an autoencoder trained on clean images, the authors show that gradient-based features outperform the encoder's own activations in two tasks: perceptual image quality assessment on TID2013 and MULTI-LIVE, and out-of-distribution classification on CURE-TSR. If the claim holds, gradient features give a principled way to detect and even grade distribution shift without retraining or test-domain data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of four gradient tensors $\partial \mathcal{L}/\partial \theta$, $\partial \mathcal{L}/\partial \phi$, $\partial \Omega/\partial \theta$, and $\partial \Omega/\partial \phi$ computed by backpropagation from the reconstruction loss $\mathcal{L}$ and the regularization $\Omega$ with respect to encoder and decoder weights. Geometrically, activations project an input onto the learned manifold, whereas these gradients point in the direction the manifold would need to move to accommodate the input; the paper treats them as error projection spaces for IQA and as feature vectors for OOD classification.

What would settle it

Take a set of images that map to nearly identical encoder activations but differ strongly in subjective quality, for instance textures altered tangentially to the learned manifold. If the Spearman correlation between the inverse-sigmoid-transformed gradient projections does not order them by human opinion scores, the central claim that gradients characterise distortion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the weight gradients obtained by backpropagating an autoencoder's loss at test time capture the directional displacement of a distorted image from the learned representation manifold, and that this directional information is a better feature for characterizing distortion than the encoder activations themselves. On the TID2013 and MULTI-LIVE databases, gradient-based projections rank among the top of 18 compared IQA estimators across RMSE, outlier ratio, Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall metrics, and they outperform the activation-based SAE method on every metric. For out-of-distribution classification on CURE-TSR, a classifier trained on gradients from challenge-free and Gaussian blur images achieves higher accuracy than one trained on latent activations for all reported challenge types.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the direction a distorted image pushes the autoencoder's weights, as summarised by backpropagated gradients, reliably tracks the degree of perceptual or distributional distortion, so that a Spearman correlation between gradient projections of original and distorted images orders images by human quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Perceptual quality can be estimated by comparing gradient projections of original and distorted images, reaching top or statistically tied performance across all metrics on TID2013 and MULTI-LIVE.
A classifier trained on gradients from only challenge-free and Gaussian-blurred images generalizes to other distortion types such as decolorization, codec error, and noise.
Combining reconstruction-loss gradients and regularization-loss gradients as features yields higher OOD classification accuracy than either alone or than latent activations.
Gradient features separate blurred from non-blurred distortions cleanly, but for non-blur types different gradient components carry complementary information.
The framework applies to both sparse autoencoders and variational autoencoders, so it is not tied to one training objective.

Reading between the lines

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

Because gradients live in parameter space rather than input space, they may provide a distortion signature that transfers across image resolutions or network instances trained on similar data; the paper does not test this directly.
A natural extension is to use per-layer gradient norms or directions to localize which spatial frequencies or regions the distortion affects, turning OOD detection into a diagnostic tool.
The directional-gradient view connects to influence-function and Fisher-information notions of how a single input perturbs a model; one could test whether gradient cosine similarity predicts human quality ratings on additional databases beyond the two reported.
For no-reference assessment, the gradient direction of a single distorted image relative to the manifold could be used to estimate distortion severity without a pristine reference; that is not demonstrated here.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The thing to know: this is a genuinely new feature representation — test-time weight gradients from an autoencoder used as directional measurements of how far an image has moved off the learned manifold — and the reported experiments give real, consistent evidence that these gradient features beat activations. On TID2013 and MULTI-LIVE, the gradient-based IQA method outranks 17 existing methods on most metrics; on CURE-TSR, gradients beat VAE activations across all six listed challenge types. The SAE and VAE are trained on challenge-free images only, and the IQA score has no fitted parameters, so the comparison with UNIQUE and the other baselines is not circular.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The IQA quality score in Sec. 4.1/Fig. 4 is a black box. The method computes gradients of the decoder weights, applies an unexplained inverse-sigmoid transform, then takes a Spearman correlation between the processed projections of original and distorted images. No derivation connects that rank correlation to human opinion scores. No per-distortion breakdown is reported, so the impressive aggregate SRCC could be carried by a subset of the 24 TID2013 distortions while failing on others. That is exactly the stress-test concern, and it lands. The OOD classifier is also underspecified: the text says seven challenge types but lists six; the classifier is trained on gradients from challenge-free and Gaussian blur images only, yet is evaluated on decolorization, codec error, noise, lens blur, dirty lens, and rain. The generalization of a binary in/out classifier across distortion types may work, but it needs justification. There are no error bars and no code — for a short ICIP paper that is a real gap, but an addressable one.

On the other hand, the central claim is not broken. The consistent margin over activations in both applications is a solid empirical fact, and the geometric intuition about orthogonal distortion direction is coherent. The paper is an extended-abstract-level treatment of a promising idea, not a complete theory. For someone working on unsupervised quality estimation or out-of-distribution detection, the gradient-feature angle is worth a read. It deserves a serious referee: I would not desk-reject it. I would send it out, ask for a major revision that pins down the IQA score, adds per-distortion results, reports variability, and releases code. The citation pattern is unremarkable; the self-citations are to the baseline they are beating.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using weight gradients obtained by backpropagating the loss of a trained autoencoder on test images as a characterization of how far test images have moved from the learned representation manifold. The method is instantiated in two applications: full-reference image quality assessment, where the quality score is the Spearman correlation between inverse-sigmoid-transformed decoder-gradient projections of original and distorted images, and out-of-distribution classification, where gradient vectors from a variational autoencoder are used as features for a binary classifier. Experiments on TID2013, MULTI-LIVE, and CURE-TSR report that gradient-based features outperform activation features and are competitive with or better than 17 existing IQA methods.

Significance. If validated, the paper offers a new unsupervised, parameter-free way to characterize distortions by exploiting directional information in backpropagated gradients. Its strengths include a comparison against 17 IQA methods, evaluation on four standard metrics, statistical-significance testing, and a public code repository. The central claims, however, rest on an underspecified IQA heuristic and on an OOD classifier trained only on a subset of distortion types. The paper is a useful short conference contribution, but the specific mechanism claimed in the abstract is not yet sufficiently demonstrated.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.1, Figure 4] The IQA quality score is not defined precisely enough, and its perceptual justification is missing. The text says that both original and distorted images are projected on the gradient space of the decoder, that inversion of a nonlinear layer is performed, and that the Spearman correlation between the two projections is the quality score. This leaves unspecified what quantity is projected (decoder activations, reconstruction error, or gradients), which weights are used (all decoder weights or only the last layer), how the inverse sigmoid is applied to a vector-valued gradient, and why the resulting rank correlation should be monotonically related to subjective scores. Without a derivation or per-distortion validation, the aggregate SRCC in Table 1 cannot distinguish a genuine representation-space characterization from an artifact that holds only for certain distortion types. Please report per-distortion SRCC on the 24 TID2013 distortion categories and provide an ablation over layer choice, normalization, and projection definition.
[Section 4.2, Table 2] The out-of-distribution classifier setup is not justified and is internally inconsistent. The text states that the classifier is trained on gradients from challenge-free and Gaussian blur training images, but the test challenges in Table 2 are DE, CE, NO, LB, DL, and RA, with no Gaussian blur class shown; the text also says there are 7 challenge types but lists only six. The paper does not explain why gradients from Gaussian blur should generalize to decolorization, codec error, noise, or rain. Additionally, the method names conflict with the table: the text says VAE-R and VAE-L refer to regularization and reconstruction loss gradients, respectively, while the table labels VAE-R as using dL/dphi and VAE-L as using dOmega/dtheta, which is the opposite assignment. Please clarify the training and test splits, include all challenge types in the evaluation, and resolve the naming inconsistency before the claim that gradient features are better indicators of out-of-distribution status can be assessed.
[Section 5.1, Table 1] The claim that the proposed method outperforms the activation-based SAE method in all categories is stronger than the displayed results support. In the MULTI-LIVE Outlier Ratio row, both the proposed method and UNIQUE have 0.000, and several significance markers in the table are 0 (statistically similar) rather than -1. The layout of the significance symbols also makes it difficult to attribute each 0 or -1 to a particular method and metric. Please separate the significance symbols from the metric values in the table and temper the claim to 'better than or equal to' with per-metric statistical significance results.
[Sections 2 and 3] Training details needed for reproducibility are missing. The SAE hyperparameters beta and lambda are taken from an online tutorial without justification, the VAE hyperparameters are not given, and the architecture (layer sizes, activations, number of layers) as well as the training data and preprocessing for both autoencoders are unspecified. Because the gradient features depend on the learned weights, this lack of detail makes it impossible to reproduce Table 2 or the gradient projections in Figure 4. Please add a complete description of the architecture and training protocol, or provide a direct link to a stable implementation.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1] The sentence 'Domain adaptation techniques have been been proposed' contains a duplicated word 'been'.
[Figure 4] The notation z', z_org, z_dst, and angle z is used in the diagram but not defined in the text.
[Section 4.2] The statement that the classifier handles 7 challenge types contradicts the list of six types that follows; please correct the count.
[Abstract] The abstract describes the IQA results as 'generally the top performing method,' which is a reasonable hedge, but the conclusion repeats 'outperformed ... in every measure'; given the ties in Table 1, the wording should be consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gradient features are computed from a fixed autoencoder and evaluated against external quality/classification labels, with self-citations used only as baselines or protocol sources.

full rationale

The central claim is that backpropagated weight gradients characterize the distorted representation space, validated on IQA and out-of-distribution classification. For IQA (Section 4.1, Fig. 4), the quality score is a Spearman correlation between inverse-sigmoid-transformed decoder-gradient projections of original and distorted images. The paper provides no fitted mapping from this score to subjective MOS; the human opinion scores are used only for evaluation. The score is a fixed, parameter-free heuristic, so it is not equivalent to, or trained on, the target labels. For out-of-distribution classification (Section 4.2, Fig. 5), the classifier is trained on gradients from challenge-free and Gaussian-blur training images and then tested on challenge types such as decolorization, codec error, noise, lens blur, dirty lens, and rain; these labels are external to the gradient-generation procedure. The autoencoder is trained on generic/challenge-free images, and the gradients arise from the reconstruction and regularization losses, not from the IQA or OOD targets. The self-citations in the paper, mainly UNIQUE [17] and MS-UNIQUE [18], are used as comparison baselines and as a source for the same preprocessing/training protocol, not as premises that force the result. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled through self-citation, or renaming of a known empirical pattern is present. The geometric interpretation in Section 3.1 is illustrative rather than a derivation whose conclusion is assumed. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the heuristic links between gradient statistics and perceptual quality or out-of-distribution status.

free parameters (3)

SAE sparsity weight beta = 3
Set as suggested by [10]; not fitted to the IQA or OOD target data, but a design choice affecting gradient magnitude.
SAE L2 regularization lambda = 3e-3
Same source [10]; controls the balance between reconstruction and regularization gradients.
VAE hyperparameters
Architecture, learning rate, and KL weight are not specified in the paper, so the exact configuration is unknown.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The representation manifold of reconstructed training images can be treated as linear for the purpose of gradient interpretation.
Used in Section 3.1 for the geometric story; the authors acknowledge it does not hold in general but claim the interpretation still applies.
ad hoc to paper The Spearman correlation between gradient projections of original and distorted images is monotonically related to perceptual quality.
This is the core IQA heuristic in Section 4.1; no derivation or external justification is given.
domain assumption Gradients from reconstruction loss and regularization loss capture different aspects of distortion.
Stated in Section 3.2; supported only by the OOD experiments.
ad hoc to paper A classifier trained on gradients from challenge-free and Gaussian blur images generalizes to other distortion types.
The choice of Gaussian blur as the only out-of-distribution training type in Section 5.2 is not justified.
domain assumption Backpropagation through a trained autoencoder yields stable gradient directions for single test images.
The method computes gradients for individual images; the paper does not analyze variance or stability.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distorted Representation Space Characterization Through Backpropagated Gradients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNUB75EX

@misc{pith2026190809998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distorted Representation Space Characterization Through Backpropagated Gradients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNUB75EX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09998}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we utilize weight gradients from backpropagation to characterize the representation space learned by deep learning algorithms. We demonstrate the utility of such gradients in applications including perceptual image quality assessment and out-of-distribution classification. The applications are chosen to validate the effectiveness of gradients as features when the test image distribution is distorted from the train image distribution. In both applications, the proposed gradient based features outperform activation features. In image quality assessment, the proposed approach is compared with other state of the art approaches and is generally the top performing method on TID 2013 and MULTI-LIVE databases in terms of accuracy, consistency, linearity, and monotonic behavior. Finally, we analyze the effect of regularization on gradients using CURE-TSR dataset for out-of-distribution classification.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning , MIT Press, 2016, www.deeplearningbook.org

work page 2016
[2]

Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives,

Y . Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent, “Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Patt. Analy. Mach. Intel., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798–1828, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Imagenet clas- siﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks,

A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet clas- siﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Neur . Info. Proc. Syst., 2012, pp. 1097–1105

work page 2012
[4]

Image processing in the context of a visual model,

T. G. Stockham, “Image processing in the context of a visual model,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 828–842, 1972

work page 1972
[5]

Learning representations by back-propagating errors,

D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” Nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533, 1986

work page 1986
[6]

Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,

V . M. Patel, R. Gopalan, R. Li, and R. Chellappa, “Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 53–69, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Sparse autoencoder,

A. Ng, “Sparse autoencoder,” CS294A Lecture notes, vol. 72, no. 2011, pp. 1–19, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

arXiv 2013

Show all 36 references

[9]

Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net,

H. Zou and T. Hastie, “Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net,” Jour . Royal Stat. Soc.: Ser . B, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 301–320, 2005

2005
[10]

Uﬂdl tutorial,

A. Ng, J. Ngiam, C. Y . Foo, Y . Mai, and Caroline S., “Uﬂdl tutorial,” 2012

2012
[11]

Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep net- works via gradient-based localization,

R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep net- works via gradient-based localization,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Comp. Vis., 2017, pp. 618–626

2017
[12]

Objective quality assessment of multiply distorted images,

D. Jayaraman, A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik, “Objective quality assessment of multiply distorted images,” in Asilomar Conf. Sig. Syst. Comp. , 2012, pp. 1693–1697

2012
[13]

Image database tid2013: Peculiarities, results and per- spectives,

N. Ponomarenko, L. Jin, O. Ieremeiev, V . Lukin, K. Egiazar- ian, J. Astola, Benoit V ozel, K. Chehdi, M. Carli, F. Battisti, et al., “Image database tid2013: Peculiarities, results and per- spectives,” Sig. Proc.: Imag. Comm., vol. 30, pp. 57–77, 2015

2015
[14]

A two-step framework for constructing blind image quality indices,

A. K. Moorthy and A. C. Bovik, “A two-step framework for constructing blind image quality indices,”IEEE Sig. Proc. Let., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 513–516, 2010

2010
[15]

Blind image quality assessment: A natural scene statistics approach in the dct do- main,

M. A. Saad, A. C. Bovik, and C. Charrier, “Blind image quality assessment: A natural scene statistics approach in the dct do- main,” IEEE Trans. on Image Proc. , vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 3339– 3352, 2012

2012
[16]

Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment,

L. Kang, P. Ye, Y . Li, and D. Doermann, “Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment,” in IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. Patt. Recog., 2014, pp. 1733–1740

2014
[17]

UNIQUE: Un- supervised image quality estimation,

D. Temel, M. Prabhushankar, and G. AlRegib, “UNIQUE: Un- supervised image quality estimation,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Let. , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1414–1418, 2016

2016
[18]

MS- UNIQUE: Multi-model and sharpness-weighted unsupervised image quality estimation,

M. Prabhushankar, D. Temel, and G. AlRegib, “MS- UNIQUE: Multi-model and sharpness-weighted unsupervised image quality estimation,” Elect. Imag., vol. 2017, no. 12, pp. 30–35, 2017

2017
[19]

Enhancing the reliabil- ity of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks,

S. Liang, Y . Li, and R. Srikant, “Enhancing the reliabil- ity of out-of-distribution image detection in neural networks,” arXiv:1706.02690, 2017

2017 arXiv
[20]

Deep au- toencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection,

B. Zong, Q. Song, M. R. Min, W. Cheng, et al., “Deep au- toencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection,” Int. Conf. Learning Repr ., 2018

2018
[21]

Video anomaly detection and localization via gaussian mixture fully convolutional variational autoencoder,

Y . Fan, G. Wen, D. Li, S. Qiu, and M. D. Levine, “Video anomaly detection and localization via gaussian mixture fully convolutional variational autoencoder,” arXiv:1805.11223, 2018

2018 arXiv
[22]

CURE-TSR: Challenging unreal and real environments for trafﬁc sign recognition,

D. Temel, G. Kwon*, M. Prabhushankar*, and G. AlRegib, “CURE-TSR: Challenging unreal and real environments for trafﬁc sign recognition,” in Neur . Info. Proc. Syst. Work. on MLITS, Long Beach, U.S., December 2017

2017
[23]

Trafﬁc signs in the wild: High- lights from the ieee video and image processing cup 2017 stu- dent competition [sp competitions],

D. Temel and G. AlRegib, “Trafﬁc signs in the wild: High- lights from the ieee video and image processing cup 2017 stu- dent competition [sp competitions],” IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. , vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 154–161, March 2018

2017
[24]

Challeng- ing environments for trafﬁc sign detection: Reliability assess- ment under inclement conditions,

D. Temel, T. Alshawi, M-H. Chen, and G. AlRegib, “Challeng- ing environments for trafﬁc sign detection: Reliability assess- ment under inclement conditions,” arXiv:1902.06857, 2019

1902 arXiv
[25]

Modiﬁed image visual quality metrics for contrast change and mean shift accounting,

N. Ponomarenko, O. Ieremeiev, V . Lukin, K. Egiazarian, and M. Carli, “Modiﬁed image visual quality metrics for contrast change and mean shift accounting,” in Proc. CADSM, 2011, pp. 305–311

2011
[26]

Im- age quality assessment: from error visibility to structural simi- larity,

Z. Wang, A. C Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Im- age quality assessment: from error visibility to structural simi- larity,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

2004
[27]

Multiscale struc- tural similarity for image quality assessment,

Z. Wang, E. P Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, “Multiscale struc- tural similarity for image quality assessment,” in Asilomar Conf. Sig., Syst. & Comp. , 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1398–1402

2003
[28]

Complex wavelet structural similarity: A new image similarity index,

M. P. Sampat, Z. Wang, S. Gupta, A. C. Bovik, and M. K. Markey, “Complex wavelet structural similarity: A new image similarity index,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 2385–2401, 2009

2009
[29]

Information content weighting for per- ceptual image quality assessment,

Z. Wang and Q. Li, “Information content weighting for per- ceptual image quality assessment,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc. , vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1185–1198, 2011

2011
[30]

SR-SIM: A fast and high performance iqa index based on spectral residual,

L. Zhang and H. Li, “SR-SIM: A fast and high performance iqa index based on spectral residual,” inIEEE Int. Conf. Image Proc., 2012, pp. 1473–1476

2012
[31]

Fsim: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment,

L. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Mou, D. Zhang, et al., “Fsim: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2378–2386, 2011

2011
[32]

No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,

A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik, “No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 4695–4708, 2012

2012
[33]

PerSIM: Multi-resolution image quality assessment in the perceptually uniform color domain,

D. Temel and G. AlRegib, “PerSIM: Multi-resolution image quality assessment in the perceptually uniform color domain,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Image Proc., 2015, pp. 1682–1686

2015
[34]

CSV: Image quality assessment based on color, structure, and visual system,

D. Temel and G. AlRegib, “CSV: Image quality assessment based on color, structure, and visual system,”Sig. Proc.: Image Comm., vol. 48, pp. 92 – 103, 2016

2016
[35]

Perceptual image quality assess- ment through spectral analysis of error representations,

D. Temel and G. AlRegib, “Perceptual image quality assess- ment through spectral analysis of error representations,” Sig. Proc.: Image Comm., 2019

2019
[36]

P.1401: Methods, metrics and procedures for statisti- cal evaluation, qualiﬁcation and comparison of objective qual- ity prediction models,

ITU-T, “P.1401: Methods, metrics and procedures for statisti- cal evaluation, qualiﬁcation and comparison of objective qual- ity prediction models,” Tech. Rep., ITU Telecom. Stand. Sec- tor, 2012

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning , MIT Press, 2016, www.deeplearningbook.org

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives,

Y . Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent, “Representation learn- ing: A review and new perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Patt. Analy. Mach. Intel., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798–1828, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Imagenet clas- siﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks,

A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet clas- siﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Neur . Info. Proc. Syst., 2012, pp. 1097–1105

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Image processing in the context of a visual model,

T. G. Stockham, “Image processing in the context of a visual model,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 828–842, 1972

work page 1972

[5] [5]

Learning representations by back-propagating errors,

D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” Nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533, 1986

work page 1986

[6] [6]

Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,

V . M. Patel, R. Gopalan, R. Li, and R. Chellappa, “Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 53–69, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Sparse autoencoder,

A. Ng, “Sparse autoencoder,” CS294A Lecture notes, vol. 72, no. 2011, pp. 1–19, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

arXiv 2013