2021 4th Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing Conference 2021
DOI: 10.1145/3508259.3508272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hacking VMAF and VMAF NEG: Vulnerability to Different Preprocessing Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been shown that VMAF's scores can approximate well the scores that humans would give [25]. However, it is vulnerable to pre-processing methods that distort the video to artificially increase its VMAF score (without improving its user-perceived quality) [28].…”
Section: Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It has been shown that VMAF's scores can approximate well the scores that humans would give [25]. However, it is vulnerable to pre-processing methods that distort the video to artificially increase its VMAF score (without improving its user-perceived quality) [28].…”
Section: Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The typical way to address MOS's limitations is by taking the human out of the loop and focusing on specific applications. E.g., VMAF [18] leverages machine learning to learn a mapping from low-level videoperformance metrics to MOS scores; this does remove the biases and inconsistencies due to human subjectivity, but is susceptible to manipulation [28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…libaom (Deng, Han, and Xu 2020) and LCEVC (V-Nova 2023) have options that optimize bitstream for increasing a VMAF score. Such tuning was designed to improve the visual quality of the encoded video; however, as VMAF is a learning-based metric, it may decrease perceptual quality (Zvezdakova et al 2019;Siniukov et al 2021). Using unstable image quality metrics as a perceptual proxy in a loss function may lead to incorrect restoration results (Ding et al 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%