Author(s):

  • Ricardo Ribeiro
  • Alina Trifan
  • António J. R. Neves

Abstract:

The wide availability and small size of different types of sensors have allowed for the acquisition of a huge amount of data about a person’s life in real time. With these data, usually denoted as lifelog data, we can analyze and understand personal experiences and behaviors. Most of the lifelog research has explored the use of visual data. However, a considerable amount of these images or videos are affected by different types of degradation or noise due to the non-controlled acquisition process. Image Quality Assessment can plays an essential role in lifelog research to deal with these data. We present in this paper a twofold study on the topic of blind image quality assessment. On the one hand, we explore the replication of the training process of a state-of-the-art deep learning model for blind image quality assessment in the wild. On the other hand, we present evidence that blind image quality assessment is an important pre-processing step to be further explored in the context of information retrieval in lifelogging applications. We consider that our efforts have been successful in the replication of the model training process, achieving similar results of inference when compared to the original version, while acknowledging a fair number of assumptions that we had to consider. Moreover, these assumptions motivated an extensive additional analysis that led to significant insights on the influence of both batch size and loss functions when training deep learning models in this context. We include preliminary results of the replicated model on a lifelogging dataset, as a potential reproducibility aspect to be considered.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010059

References:
  1. Xu, S.; Jiang, S.; Min, W. No-reference/blind image quality assessment: A survey. IETE Tech. Rev. 2017, 34, 223–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhai, G.; Min, X. Perceptual image quality assessment: A survey. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2020, 63, 211301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Leonardi, M.; Napoletano, P.; Schettini, R.; Rozza, A. No Reference, Opinion Unaware Image Quality Assessment by Anomaly Detection. Sensors 2021, 21, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Liu, T.J.; Liu, K.H.; Lin, J.Y.; Lin, W.; Kuo, C.C.J. A ParaBoost Method to Image Quality Assessment. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2017, 28, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Golestaneh, S.; Karam, L.J. Reduced-Reference Quality Assessment Based on the Entropy of DWT Coefficients of Locally Weighted Gradient Magnitudes. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2016, 25, 5293–5303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wu, J.; Ma, J.; Liang, F.; Dong, W.; Shi, G.; Lin, W. End-to-end blind image quality prediction with cascaded deep neural network. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2020, 29, 7414–7426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, J.; Wu, J.; Li, L.; Dong, W.; Xie, X.; Shi, G.; Lin, W. Blind Image Quality Assessment With Active Inference. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2021, 30, 3650–3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Min, X.; Zhai, G.; Gu, K.; Fang, Y.; Yang, X.; Wu, X.; Zhou, J.; Liu, X. Blind quality assessment of compressed images via pseudo structural similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), Seattle, WA, USA, 11–15 July 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hosu, V.; Lin, H.; Sziranyi, T.; Saupe, D. KonIQ-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2020, 29, 4041–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Su, Y.; Korhonen, J. Blind Natural Image Quality Prediction Using Convolutional Neural Networks And Weighted Spatial Pooling. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 25–28 October 2020; pp. 191–195. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gurrin, C.; Smeaton, A.F.; Doherty, A.R. Lifelogging: Personal big data. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 2014, 8, 1–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ribeiro, R.; Trifan, A.; Neves, A.J. Lifelog Retrieval From Daily Digital Data: Narrative Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2022, 10, e30517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ribeiro, R.; Trifan, A.; Neves, A.J. MEMORIA: A Memory Enhancement and MOment RetrIeval Application for LSC 2022. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual on Lifelog Search Challenge, Newark, NJ, USA, 27–30 June 2022; pp. 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  14. Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.J.; Li, K.; Fei-Fei, L. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami, FL, USA, 20–25 June 2009; pp. 248–255. [Google Scholar]
  15. Szegedy, C.; Ioffe, S.; Vanhoucke, V.; Alemi, A.A. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, USA, 4–9 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hosu, V. Koniq. 2020. Available online: https://github.com/subpic/koniq (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  17. Ghadiyaram, D.; Bovik, A.C. Massive online crowdsourced study of subjective and objective picture quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2015, 25, 372–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Gurrin, C.; Jónsson, B.T.; Schöffmann, K.; Dang-Nguyen, D.T.; Lokoč, J.; Tran, M.T.; Hürst, W.; Rossetto, L.; Healy, G. Introduction to the Fourth Annual Lifelog Search Challenge, LSC’21. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR’21), Taipei, Taiwan, 16–19 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, W.; Duanmu, Z.; Wang, Z. End-to-End Blind Quality Assessment of Compressed Videos Using Deep Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 June 2018; pp. 546–554. [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, D.; Jiang, T.; Jiang, M. Norm-in-norm loss with faster convergence and better performance for image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Seattle, WA, USA, 12–16 October 2020; pp. 789–797. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, D.; Jiang, T.; Jiang, M. Unified quality assessment of in-the-wild videos with mixed datasets training. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2021, 129, 1238–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
The SELF Institute