Abstract
The field of automatic image inpainting has progressed rapidly in recent years, but no one has yet proposed a standard method of evaluating algorithms. This absence is due to the problem's challenging nature: image-inpainting algorithms strive for realism in the resulting images, but realism is a subjective concept intrinsic to human perception. Existing objective image-quality metrics provide a poor approximation of what humans consider more or less realistic. To improve the situation and to better organize both prior and future research in this field, we conducted a subjective comparison of nine state-of-the-art inpainting algorithms and propose objective quality metrics that exhibit high correlation with the results of our comparison.