Associations between MSE and SSIM as cost functions in linear decomposition with application to bit allocation for sparse coding

Abstract The traditional image quality assessments, such as the mean squared error (MSE), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the Peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), are all based on the absolute error of images. Structural similarity (SSIM) index is another important image quality assessment which has been shown to be more effective in the human vision system (HVS). Although there are many essential differences between MSE and SSIM, some important associations exist between them. In this paper, the associations between MSE and SSIM as cost functions in linear decomposition are investigated. Based on the associations, a bit-allocation algorithm for sparse coding is proposed by considering both the reconstructed image quality and the reconstructed image contrast. In the proposed algorithm, the space occupied by a linear coefficient of a basis in sparse coding is reduced to only 9 to 10 bits, in which 1 bit is used to save the sign of linear coefficient, 3 bits are used to save the number of powers of 10 in scientific notation, and only 5 to 6 bits are used to save the significance digits. The experimental results show that the proposed bit-allocation algorithm for sparse coding can maintain both the image quality and the image contrast well.

[1]  Bülent Sankur,et al.  Statistical evaluation of image quality measures , 2002, J. Electronic Imaging.

[2]  David J. Field,et al.  Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1? , 1997, Vision Research.

[3]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[4]  Nanning Zheng,et al.  Parameter analysis of fractal image compression and its applications in image sharpening and smoothing , 2013, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[5]  Fei-Yue Wang,et al.  A novel approach inspired by optic nerve characteristics for few-shot occluded face recognition , 2020, Neurocomputing.

[6]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries , 1993, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[7]  Hideyuki Tamura,et al.  Textural Features Corresponding to Visual Perception , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Qianhua He,et al.  Time–frequency audio feature extraction based on tensor representation of sparse coding , 2015 .

[9]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge , 2010, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[10]  Zhou Wang,et al.  On the Mathematical Properties of the Structural Similarity Index , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[11]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[12]  Yu Zhou,et al.  SSIM-Based Game Theory Approach for Rate-Distortion Optimized Intra Frame CTU-Level Bit Allocation , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[13]  Yongsheng Ding,et al.  A sparse autoencoder compressed sensing method for acquiring the pressure array information of clothing , 2018, Neurocomputing.

[14]  Qi Wang,et al.  SCAR: Spatial-/Channel-wise Attention Regression Networks for Crowd Counting , 2019, Neurocomputing.

[15]  Panagiotis Tsakalides,et al.  Snapshot High Dynamic Range Imaging via Sparse Representations and Feature Learning , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[16]  M. Elad,et al.  $rm K$-SVD: An Algorithm for Designing Overcomplete Dictionaries for Sparse Representation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[17]  Richard Dosselmann,et al.  A comprehensive assessment of the structural similarity index , 2011, Signal Image Video Process..