TID2013数据集的心理测量量表

A. Mikhailiuk, M. Pérez-Ortiz, Rafał K. Mantiuk
{"title":"TID2013数据集的心理测量量表","authors":"A. Mikhailiuk, M. Pérez-Ortiz, Rafał K. Mantiuk","doi":"10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"TID2013 is a subjective image quality assessment dataset with a wide range of distortion types and over 3000 images. The dataset has proven to be a challenging test for objective quality metrics. The dataset mean opinion scores were obtained by collecting pairwise comparison judgments using the Swiss tournament system, and averaging votes of observers. However, this approach differs from the usual analysis of multiple pairwise comparisons, which involves psychometric scaling of the comparison data using either Thurstone or Bradley-Terry models. In this paper we investigate how quality scores change when they are computed using such psychometric scaling instead of averaging vote counts. In order to properly scale TID2013 quality scores, we conduct four additional experiments of two different types, which we found necessary to produce a common quality scale: comparisons with reference images, and cross-content comparisons. We demonstrate on a fifth validation experiment that the two additional types of comparisons are necessary and in conjunction with psychometric scaling improve the consistency of quality scores, especially across images depicting different contents.","PeriodicalId":6618,"journal":{"name":"2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)","volume":"17 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric scaling of TID2013 dataset\",\"authors\":\"A. Mikhailiuk, M. Pérez-Ortiz, Rafał K. Mantiuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"TID2013 is a subjective image quality assessment dataset with a wide range of distortion types and over 3000 images. The dataset has proven to be a challenging test for objective quality metrics. The dataset mean opinion scores were obtained by collecting pairwise comparison judgments using the Swiss tournament system, and averaging votes of observers. However, this approach differs from the usual analysis of multiple pairwise comparisons, which involves psychometric scaling of the comparison data using either Thurstone or Bradley-Terry models. In this paper we investigate how quality scores change when they are computed using such psychometric scaling instead of averaging vote counts. In order to properly scale TID2013 quality scores, we conduct four additional experiments of two different types, which we found necessary to produce a common quality scale: comparisons with reference images, and cross-content comparisons. We demonstrate on a fifth validation experiment that the two additional types of comparisons are necessary and in conjunction with psychometric scaling improve the consistency of quality scores, especially across images depicting different contents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 Tenth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

TID2013是一个主观图像质量评估数据集,具有广泛的失真类型和3000多张图像。该数据集已被证明是对客观质量指标的具有挑战性的测试。数据集的平均意见得分是通过使用瑞士锦标赛系统收集两两比较判断和观察员的平均投票获得的。然而,这种方法不同于通常的多重两两比较分析,后者涉及使用Thurstone或Bradley-Terry模型对比较数据进行心理测量缩放。在本文中,我们研究了当他们使用这种心理测量量表而不是平均投票计数计算时,质量分数是如何变化的。为了适当地衡量TID2013质量分数,我们进行了两种不同类型的四个额外实验,我们认为有必要产生一个共同的质量量表:与参考图像的比较,以及跨内容的比较。我们在第五次验证实验中证明,这两种额外的比较是必要的,并且与心理测量量表相结合,可以提高质量分数的一致性,特别是在描绘不同内容的图像之间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychometric scaling of TID2013 dataset
TID2013 is a subjective image quality assessment dataset with a wide range of distortion types and over 3000 images. The dataset has proven to be a challenging test for objective quality metrics. The dataset mean opinion scores were obtained by collecting pairwise comparison judgments using the Swiss tournament system, and averaging votes of observers. However, this approach differs from the usual analysis of multiple pairwise comparisons, which involves psychometric scaling of the comparison data using either Thurstone or Bradley-Terry models. In this paper we investigate how quality scores change when they are computed using such psychometric scaling instead of averaging vote counts. In order to properly scale TID2013 quality scores, we conduct four additional experiments of two different types, which we found necessary to produce a common quality scale: comparisons with reference images, and cross-content comparisons. We demonstrate on a fifth validation experiment that the two additional types of comparisons are necessary and in conjunction with psychometric scaling improve the consistency of quality scores, especially across images depicting different contents.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信