Towards Standardized Light Field Quality Assessment: Hybrid Subjective Benchmarking and Objective Metric Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03494v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 17:03:45 GMT
• Title: Towards Standardized Light Field Quality Assessment: Hybrid Subjective Benchmarking and Objective Metric Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a standardized workflow for light field QA, developed and deployed in the context of JPEG Pleno standardization activities.<n>The benchmark is designed to encompass not only traditional coding-only artifacts but also distortions that arise in processing pipelines.<n>A hybrid subjective method is proposed enabling fine-grained assessment by combining reference-anchored quality rating with targeted pairwise refinement.
• Score: 3.966528468818454
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarking immersive media coding solutions, especially in the standardization context, requires reliable and reproducible subjective quality assessment (QA) procedures, along with objective quality metrics that remain accurate across different distortion types. This paper presents a standardized workflow for light field QA, developed and deployed in the context of JPEG Pleno standardization activities, which integrates benchmark generation, a hybrid subjective evaluation, and objective metric analysis into a common workflow. The benchmark is designed to encompass not only traditional coding-only artifacts but also distortions that arise in processing pipelines in which light field encoding is accompanied with view synthesis and reconstruction techniques. A hybrid subjective method is proposed enabling fine-grained assessment by combining reference-anchored quality rating with targeted pairwise refinement in perceptually ambiguous regions. The reliability of subjective scores is verified using statistical consistency analyses between observers of two cohorts. Finally, a large set of objective metrics is systematically evaluated in terms of global prediction accuracy, local agreement in ambiguous quality regions, and robustness across distortion families. The results show that several metrics achieve strong agreement for coding-only stimuli, but their performance consistently drops when view synthesis distortions are included. The analysis further highlights the importance of view-pooling strategy in the design of future light field quality metrics. The work provides a reproducible and standardization-ready framework for fine-grained light field QA, while identifying key limitations of current objective metrics under emerging coding pipelines. The subjectively annotated dataset is publicly available at https://plenodb.jpeg.org/lfqa/objectivecfp.

Related papers

• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• EvalVerse: Pipeline-Aware and Expert-Calibrated Benchmarking for Professional Cinematic Video Generation [59.569634087474185]
  We introduce EvalVerse, a comprehensive, pipeline-aware, and expert-calibrated evaluation framework.<n>First, we organize domain knowledge into an evaluation taxonomy aligned with the professional filmmaking workflow.<n>Second, we distill human expert judgments into a curated dataset with large-scale human annotations.<n>Third, we inject this knowledge into Vision-Language Models (VLMs) through an expert-calibrated fine-tuning strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T06:22:21Z)
• K$α$LOS finds Consensus: A Meta-Algorithm for Evaluating Inter-Annotator Agreement in Complex Vision Tasks [4.297070083645049]
  We propose K$$LOS, a unified meta-algorithm that generalizes the "Localization First" principle to dataset quality evaluation.<n>By resolving spatial correspondence before assessing agreement, our framework transforms complex-categorical problems into nominal reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T08:54:05Z)
• TOPO-Bench: An Open-Source Topological Mapping Evaluation Framework with Quantifiable Perceptual Aliasing [10.736029638634504]
  We formalize topological consistency as the fundamental property of topological maps and show that localization accuracy provides an efficient surrogate metric.<n>We propose the first quantitative measure of dataset ambiguity to enable fair comparisons across environments.<n>All datasets, baselines, and evaluation tools are fully open-sourced to foster consistent and reproducible research in topological mapping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T08:58:08Z)
• Influence Guided Context Selection for Effective Retrieval-Augmented Generation [23.188397777606095]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses large language model (LLM) hallucinations by grounding responses in external knowledge.<n>Existing approaches attempt to improve performance through context selection based on predefined context quality assessment metrics.<n>We reconceptualize context quality assessment as an inference-time data valuation problem and introduce the Contextual Influence Value (CI value)<n>This novel metric quantifies context quality by measuring the performance degradation when removing each context from the list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T07:19:09Z)
• Rethinking Evaluation of Infrared Small Target Detection [105.59753496831739]
  This paper introduces a hybrid-level metric incorporating pixel- and target-level performance, proposing a systematic error analysis method, and emphasizing the importance of cross-dataset evaluation.<n>An open-source toolkit has be released to facilitate standardized benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T02:45:07Z)
• Compressed Feature Quality Assessment: Dataset and Baselines [89.62929964441962]
  We propose the first benchmark dataset for evaluating semantic fidelity of compressed features.<n>We systematically assess three widely used metrics -- MSE, cosine similarity, and Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) -- in terms of their ability to capture semantic degradation.<n>This work advances the field by establishing a foundational benchmark and providing a critical resource for the community to explore CFQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T04:16:39Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• TISE: A Toolbox for Text-to-Image Synthesis Evaluation [9.092600296992925]
  We conduct a study on state-of-the-art methods for single- and multi-object text-to-image synthesis. We propose a common framework for evaluating these methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T16:39:35Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Towards Question-Answering as an Automatic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary [65.37544133256499]
  We propose a metric to evaluate the content quality of a summary using question-answering (QA) We demonstrate the experimental benefits of QA-based metrics through an analysis of our proposed metric, QAEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-01T15:33:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.