Josep M. Rocafort

Josep M. Rocafort, Shaolin Su, Javier Vazquez-Corral et al.

Recent image Super-Resolution (SR) models are achieving impressive effects in reconstructing details and delivering visually pleasant outputs. However, the overpowering generative ability can sometimes hallucinate and thus change the image content despite gaining high visual quality. This type of high-level change can be easily identified by humans yet not well-studied in existing low-level image quality metrics. In this paper, we establish the importance of measuring high-level fidelity for SR models as a complementary criterion to reveal the reliability of generative SR models. We construct the first annotated dataset with fidelity scores from different SR models, and evaluate how state-of-the-art (SOTA) SR models actually perform in preserving high-level fidelity. Based on the dataset, we then analyze how existing image quality metrics correlate with fidelity measurement, and further show that this high-level task can be better addressed by foundation models. Finally, by fine-tuning SR models based on our fidelity feedback, we show that both semantic fidelity and perceptual quality can be improved, demonstrating the potential value of our proposed criteria, both in model evaluation and optimization. We will release the dataset, code, and models upon acceptance.

Shaolin Su, Josep M. Rocafort, Danna Xue et al.

While recent advancing image super-resolution (SR) techniques are continually improving the perceptual quality of their outputs, they can usually fail in quantitative evaluations. This inconsistency leads to a growing distrust in existing image metrics for SR evaluations. Though image evaluation depends on both the metric and the reference ground truth (GT), researchers typically do not inspect the role of GTs, as they are generally accepted as `perfect' references. However, due to the data being collected in the early years and the ignorance of controlling other types of distortions, we point out that GTs in existing SR datasets can exhibit relatively poor quality, which leads to biased evaluations. Following this observation, in this paper, we are interested in the following questions: Are GT images in existing SR datasets 100% trustworthy for model evaluations? How does GT quality affect this evaluation? And how to make fair evaluations if there exist imperfect GTs? To answer these questions, this paper presents two main contributions. First, by systematically analyzing seven state-of-the-art SR models across three real-world SR datasets, we show that SR performances can be consistently affected across models by low-quality GTs, and models can perform quite differently when GT quality is controlled. Second, we propose a novel perceptual quality metric, Relative Quality Index (RQI), that measures the relative quality discrepancy of image pairs, thus issuing the biased evaluations caused by unreliable GTs. Our proposed model achieves significantly better consistency with human opinions. We expect our work to provide insights for the SR community on how future datasets, models, and metrics should be developed.