Parametrization of an image understanding quality metric with a subjective evaluation

被引:1
|
作者
Hemery, B. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Laurent, H. [4 ]
Emile, B. [5 ]
Rosenberger, C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Caen Basse Normandie, GREYC, UMR 6072, F-14032 Caen, France
[2] ENSICAEN, GREYC, UMR 6072, F-14050 Caen, France
[3] CNRS, GREYC, UMR 6072, F-14032 Caen, France
[4] Univ Orleans, ENSI Bourges, PRISME Lab, Orleans, France
[5] Univ Orleans, IUT Indre, PRISME Lab, Orleans, France
关键词
Image understanding; Subjective evaluation; Object localization; Object recognition; Evaluation metrics; RECOGNITION;
D O I
10.1016/j.patrec.2012.11.016
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Image understanding has many real industrial applications (video-monitoring, image retrieval, etc.). Given an image and an associated ground truth, it is possible to quanjpgy the quality of understanding results provided by different algorithms or parameters. To this end, it is necessary to take into account many factors for each object in the image: localization and recognition errors and under or over-detection of objects. In order to define an evaluation metric for quanjpgying the quality of an image understanding result, we have to set, as for example, the weights of each kind of error in the global score. For a correct parameters setting of an evaluation metric we defined previously, we conducted a subjective evaluation of image understanding results involving many experts in image processing. We present in this paper the developed method and analyze the obtained results to weight the various errors in an appropriate way. We show the benefit of this kind of study to define the correct parameters of the metric in order to have a judgment as reliable the one provided by experts. Experimental results on many images from the PASCAL VOC Challenge show the good behavior of this metric compared to the human judgment. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:511 / 518
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Depth-of-field effect in subjective and objective evaluation of image quality
    Zhang, Tingting
    Nefs, Harold
    Liu, Hantao
    Xia, Ling
    Liu, Xiaofeng
    Wu, Xiaoli
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2018 CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH IN ADAPTIVE AND CONVERGENT SYSTEMS (RACS 2018), 2018, : 308 - 312
  • [42] Subjective Score Predictor: A New Evaluation Function of Distorted Image Quality
    Luo, Xiaoyan
    Wang, Shining
    Yuan, Ding
    MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING, 2016, 2016
  • [43] Image metrics for predicting subjective image quality
    Chen, L
    Singer, B
    Guirao, A
    Porter, J
    Williams, DR
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2005, 82 (05) : 358 - 369
  • [44] Understanding image quality
    Janssen, TJWM
    2001 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL II, PROCEEDINGS, 2001, : 7 - 7
  • [45] A New Benchmark Database and Objective Metric for Light Field Image Quality Evaluation
    Zhang, Zhengyu
    Tian, Shishun
    Zhou, Jinjia
    Morin, Luce
    Zhang, Lu
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, 2025, 35 (03) : 2382 - 2397
  • [46] Superpixel-based Structural Similarity Metric for Image Fusion Quality Evaluation
    Wang, Eryan
    Yang, Bin
    Pang, Lihui
    SENSING AND IMAGING, 2021, 22 (01):
  • [47] An oriented gradient based image quality metric for pedestrian detection performance evaluation
    Winterlich, Anthony
    Hughes, Ciaran
    Kilmartin, Liam
    Glavin, Martin
    Jones, Edward
    SIGNAL PROCESSING-IMAGE COMMUNICATION, 2015, 31 : 61 - 75
  • [48] Superpixel-based Structural Similarity Metric for Image Fusion Quality Evaluation
    Eryan Wang
    Bin Yang
    Lihui Pang
    Sensing and Imaging, 2021, 22
  • [49] Noisy images-JPEG compressed: subjective and objective image quality evaluation
    Corchs, Silvia
    Gasparini, Francesca
    Schettini, Raimondo
    IMAGE QUALITY AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE XI, 2014, 9016
  • [50] An Improvement Image Subjective Quality Evaluation Model Based on Just Noticeable Difference
    Niu, Bohan
    ADVANCES IN INTELLIGENT INFORMATION HIDING AND MULTIMEDIA SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL 2, 2017, 64 : 93 - 100