A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Image Quality Assessment Algorithms

Abstract

Image quality assessment (IQA) algorithms aim to predict perceived image quality by human observers. Over the last two decades, a large amount of work has been carried out in the field. New algorithms are being developed at a rapid rate in different areas of IQA, but are often tested and compared with limited existing models using out-of-date test data. There is a significant gap when it comes to large-scale performance evaluation studies that include a wide variety of test data and competing algorithms. In this work we aim to fill this gap by carrying out the largest performance evaluation study so far. We test the performance of 43 full-reference (FR), seven fused FR (22 versions), and 14 no-reference (NR) methods on nine subject-rated IQA datasets, of which five contain singly distorted images and four contain multiply distorted content. We use a variety of performance evaluation and statistical significance testing criteria. Our findings not only point to the top performing FR and NR IQA methods, but also highlight the performance gap between them. In addition, we have also conducted a comparative study on FR fusion methods, and an important discovery is that rank aggregation based FR fusion is able to outperform not only other FR fusion approaches but also the top performing FR methods. It may be used to annotate IQA datasets as a possible alternative to subjective ratings, especially in situations where it is not possible to obtain human opinions, such as in the case of large-scale datasets composed of thousands or even millions of images.