Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

ViDA-UGC: Detailed Image Quality Analysis via Visual Distortion Assessment for UGC Images

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a 534K-sample, distortion-focused instruction dataset gives open multimodal language models detailed image quality analysis for user-generated images — distortion grounding, low-level perception, and reasoning…

desk verdict A genuinely useful UGC distortion dataset and benchmark with credible gains on external Q-Bench, but the 'surpassing GPT-4o' claim overreaches: the description evaluation is a closed GPT-4o loop. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12605 v1 pith:JJWR73JJ submitted 2025-08-18 cs.CV

Wenjie Liao , Jieyu Yuan , Yifang Xu , Chunle Guo , Zilong Zhang , Jihong Li , Jiachen Fu , Haotian Fan
show 3 more authors
Tao Li Junhui Cui Chongyi Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imagequalityassessmentmultimodallargelanguagemodelsuser-generatedcontentdistortiongroundingexplainableIQAinstructiontuningchain-of-thoughtpromptingViDA-UGC-Bench
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that open multimodal language models can be taught to analyze image quality the way a human expert would: by locating distortions, naming their attributes, and reasoning from those observations to a quality judgment. The authors build ViDA-UGC, a dataset of 11,534 user-generated images with 36K human-labeled distortion boxes and 534K instruction-tuning samples, plus ViDA-UGC-Bench, a 476-image benchmark whose 6,149 questions were revised by a professional team. They pair the data with a chain-of-thought assessment framework that generates stepwise quality descriptions from human annotations and GPT-4o distortion descriptions. If the reported results hold, fine-tuning on this corpus gives open models distortion grounding, low-level perception, and reasoning description abilities that match or exceed GPT-4o, which is what practical quality control and restoration guidance require.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a four-step distortion-oriented construction pipeline. Images are sampled from UGC datasets with a MILP-based balancing strategy; human subjects draw distortion bounding boxes and give mean opinion scores. Each box is marked visually using a set-of-mark scheme, and GPT-4o is prompted to write five attributes for it: type, position, severity, impact, and significance. A chain-of-thought assessment framework then feeds the human MOS, rating criteria, and these distortion triplets into GPT-4o and asks it to analyze overall quality in five ordered steps — general impression, distortion search and analysis, key-distortion identification, overall quality analysis, and rating — and to assess individual distortions similarly, interleaving grounding as '[distortion](bounding box)' so text and location stay tied. Step 4 converts all of this into templated grounding, perception, and description instruction data. The framework does double duty: it generates the training corpus and, used as a prompt at inference time, improves description quality for models that were never fine-tuned.

What would settle it

Give independent human experts the same UGC images without the reference distortion triplets and ask them to mark each model-produced description for factual accuracy about distortion type, location, severity, and reasoning validity; if human ratings do not rank ViDA-UGC-tuned models above their base models, or if they disagree with the GPT-4o judge on the same texts, the reported improvements are evaluation artifacts rather than real quality-analysis gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that distortion-specific data, not more general low-level data, is what unlocks detailed explainable IQA in open MLLMs. Concretely, on ViDA-UGC-Bench, tuning with ViDA-UGC lifts overall low-level perception accuracy from 47.53% to 71.45% for Qwen2-VL-7B and from 47.37% to 73.00% for InternVL3-8B, both surpassing GPT-4o's zero-shot 55.20%; tuning with Q-Instruct, by contrast, often lowers strong baselines' scores. Referring-grounding Acc 0.5 rises from about 24.9% to 42.1% for Qwen2-VL-7B and from 25.8% to 44.2% for InternVL3-8B. Quality-description scores also improve across all baselines, and the training-free CoT framework alone improves descriptions without any fine-tuning. The paper interprets these results as evidence that MLLMs have latent detailed-quality-analysis abilities that a distortion-oriented pipeline can reliably unlock.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on treating GPT-4o's distortion descriptions, generated from human boxes and scores and then partly edited by a professional team, as the true explanation of image quality — if those descriptions carry systematic biases that the human edits did not remove, models tuned and scored against them may be learning to mimic a particular judge rather than to analyze quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ViDA-UGC-tuned open models outperform GPT-4o zero-shot on detailed low-level perception of UGC distortions: the best tuned model scores 74.80% overall on ViDA-UGC-Bench versus GPT-4o's 55.20%.
  • Distortion referring-grounding accuracy, measured by Acc 0.5, rises by roughly 14 to 18 percentage points across four base models after tuning, and models that sometimes failed to return boxes become reliable.
  • Training with Q-Instruct degrades several strong baselines on ViDA-UGC-Bench, while ViDA-UGC improves them, implying that generic low-level instruction data is not a substitute for distortion-specific supervision.
  • Applying the CoT framework at inference time improves quality-description scores on both benchmarks even without fine-tuning, so the same prompting recipe can be used directly with existing MLLMs.
  • Because the benchmark shows an average 29% drop from Q-Bench to ViDA-UGC-Bench, prior results likely overstate MLLMs' readiness for detailed quality analysis.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The five-attribute distortion schema is content-agnostic; a testable extension is to annotate AIGC images with the same schema and see whether the grounding and description gains transfer, since the paper explicitly restricts itself to UGC.
  • The paper's tables show ViDA-UGC tuning can hurt performance on non-distortion low-level questions about color, lighting, and composition, so a mixed curriculum that combines ViDA-UGC with general low-level perception data may be needed for a model strong on both; this combination is not tested in the paper.
  • Because the benchmark's grounding labels are boxes rather than masks, the gap the paper reports between MLLMs and detection models could shrink or grow if the task were redefined as pixel-level region perception.
  • The pipeline could become a data flywheel: models tuned on ViDA-UGC could propose candidate distortion boxes for human review, expanding annotation to larger UGC streams at lower cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ViDA-UGC, a large instruction-tuning dataset for explainable image quality assessment of user-generated content. The dataset contains 11,534 images, 36K human-annotated distortion bounding boxes, and 534K instruction samples spanning three sub-datasets: distortion grounding, low-level perception, and reasoning quality description. The construction pipeline combines human annotation with GPT-4o generation under a Chain-of-Thought assessment framework. The authors also introduce ViDA-UGC-Bench (476 images, 6,149 QA pairs) with professional human revision. Experiments fine-tune four open MLLMs on ViDA-UGC and compare against Q-Instruct tuning and GPT-4o zero-shot on Q-Bench and ViDA-UGC-Bench, reporting consistent improvements across perception, description, and grounding.

Significance. If validated, the dataset and benchmark are potentially valuable contributions: they are among the first large-scale UGC-specific distortion assessment corpora covering three complementary tasks, with human-in-the-loop construction, a distortion-oriented CoT framework that also works training-free, and an external anchor via Q-Bench. The grounding results are particularly credible because the bounding boxes are human-annotated and the gains are large (e.g., Table 3, Acc0.5 improvements of +8.9 to +18.4 over baselines). The paper also includes useful comparisons with object-detection baselines. However, the headline claim that ViDA-UGC-tuned models 'even surpass GPT-4o' is weakened by GPT-4o self-reference in the benchmark construction and evaluation; this needs an external, human-grounded evaluation before the claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proposed ViDA-UGC-Bench; Supplementary Benchmark on Quality Description Ability] The claim that ViDA-UGC-tuned models surpass GPT-4o is not yet supported because the benchmark references, training targets, and description judge all derive from GPT-4o. In Step 2 of the construction pipeline, GPT-4o generates the distortion attributes (type, position, severity, impact, significance); in Step 3, GPT-4o produces the CoT reasoning descriptions; in Step 4, GPT-4o converts them into MCQ/VQA. ViDA-UGC-Bench is selected from this corpus, and the description evaluation in the supplementary (Tables 3, 6, 7) uses GPT-4o as the judge, scoring model outputs against [DISTORTION INFO], the same attribute representation GPT-4o produced in Step 2. A model fine-tuned on hundreds of thousands of GPT-4o-written rationales is therefore well positioned to match GPT-4o's output style and score highly on its judging preferences; the reported margins on ViDA-UGC-Bench description (e.g., InternVL3-8B-ViDA 5.87 vs baseline 4.84 in Table 2) may reflect style mimicry rather than human-aligned quality analysis. The human expert revision is asserted but unquantified: no revision rate, inter-annotator agreement, or before/after comparison is reported. Please (i) evaluate quality descriptions with human expert judgments or with a different judge model and human-written references, (ii) report quantitative revision statistics for ViDA-UGC-Bench, and (iii) clearly separate the externally anchored Q-Bench perception results from the in-corpus ViDA-UGC-Bench results when making 'surpassing GPT-4o' statements.
  2. [Proposed ViDA-UGC-Bench; Supplementary Data Statistics] The disjointness of ViDA-UGC-Bench from the training data is not established. The main text says the benchmark is composed of samples 'from ViDA-UGC', and the models are fine-tuned on ViDA-UGC; the supplementary only says 'we split the whole dataset into train and benchmark' without giving the number of training images or the exact split procedure. If any of the 476 benchmark images or their 6,149 QA pairs were also in the instruction-tuning corpus, the gains in Tables 1-3 would reflect memorization rather than generalization. Please state the split explicitly, report the number of training images, and confirm that no benchmark image, MCQ, grounding sample, or description reference appears in the fine-tuning data.
  3. [Experiment, Table 1 and Table 3] The experimental comparisons lack statistical support for the headline margin. Table 1 shows Qwen2-VL-7B-ViDA at 80.6% vs GPT-4o at 78.6% on Q-Bench overall; with no confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-seed runs, a 2-point margin on a several-thousand-question benchmark is not established as a real difference. Similarly, Table 3 reports Acc0.5 gains up to +18.4 without error bars or significance testing. Please report bootstrap confidence intervals or paired significance tests (e.g., McNemar's test) for the main perception and grounding comparisons, and adjust the abstract's 'even surpassing GPT-4o' claim to the actually supported comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The entry '77.19/%' for InternVL3-8B ViDA-UGC should read '77.19%'.
  2. [Main Results, Description paragraph] The typo 'Q-Insturct' appears in the description of Table 2; it should be 'Q-Instruct'.
  3. [Abstract and Table 2] No GPT-4o row is reported in the description results (Table 2), so the abstract's broad statement that tuned models 'even surpass GPT-4o' is not directly supported for the description task; please either add GPT-4o description scores or restrict the superiority claim to the perception task.
  4. [Proposed ViDA-UGC Dataset, Step 2] The sentence 'we are the first to transfer the task from high-level object grounding to low-level distortion grounding' appears to conflict with the cited prior works Q-Ground and Grounding-IQA, which already perform distortion grounding; please rephrase to specify the precise novelty (e.g., the referring-grounding formulation for distortions).
  5. [Supplementary, Dataset Statistics and Experimental Details] The dataset size is referred to as both 534K instruction samples and 'ViDA-587K' in the supplementary; please make the numbers consistent and clarify the exact count.
  6. [Supplementary, Benchmark on Quality Description Ability] For the Q-Bench rows of Table 2, it is unclear whether the golden reference is the human-written LLDescribe text or ViDA-UGC's [DISTORTION INFO]; the prompts in Tables 3/6/7 suggest the latter, which would make the Q-Bench description scores also dependent on GPT-4o-generated references. Please clarify the reference used for each benchmark.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: ViDA-UGC-Bench description evaluation is a GPT-4o closed loop (training targets, reference, and judge all derive from GPT-4o), while external Q-Bench results and human-box grounding keep the core claim independently supported.

  1. self definitional [Main paper Steps 2 and 4 of the Distortion-Oriented Dataset Construction Pipeline; Supplementary 'Benchmark on Quality Description Ability' and Table 3 caption]
    "GPT-4o then outputs textual descriptions of distortions and their visual attributes. ... we use GPT-4o to transform quality descriptions into distortion-related visual question answering (VQA) and multiple-choice questions (MCQ). ... we conduct a five-round GPT evaluation between ground truth distortion information in an image and the model-generated analysis ... [DISTORTION INFO] are replaced by the output description from MLLMs and distortion attributes (e.g., type, position, impact, significance) in the ViDA-UGC-Bench."

    The benchmark's description 'ground truth' is the GPT-4o-generated distortion triplet from Step 2, the judge performing the five-round evaluation is GPT-4o, and the models being scored were fine-tuned on GPT-4o CoT descriptions and MCQs built from the same triplet vocabulary. A high completeness/precision score therefore measures how well the model reproduces GPT-4o's attribute wording and reasoning style, not how well it matches an independent human ground truth. The paper asserts that a professional team revised the QA pairs, but it reports no revision rate, no inter-annotator agreement, and no before/after comparison, so the evidence does not break the loop.

  2. self definitional [Supplementary Table 7, Reasoning Evaluation Prompt]
    "Please Evaluate whether the reasoning in [MLLM DESC] demonstrates comprehensive technical analysis and logical coherence. Please rate score 3 for multi-stage reasoning with precise technical terms, score 2 for clear analysis with minor logic gaps, score 1 for basic observations with weak reasoning, and score 0 for irrelevant/illogical statements."

    The reasoning rubric explicitly rewards 'multi-stage reasoning with precise technical terms', which is exactly the output style the proposed CoT assessment framework and GPT-4o data-generation pipeline are engineered to produce. Because the same GPT-4o-generated reference and GPT-4o judge are used, and because the tuned models were trained on hundreds of thousands of GPT-4o rationales, the measured CoT-driven gain in 'reasoning' is partly a reward for stylistic mimicry of the generation pipeline rather than an independent human judgment of reasoning quality. The external Q-Bench description comparison uses human-written references and therefore mitigates, but does not remove, the self-reference in the ViDA-UGC-Bench description evaluation.

full rationale

The core dataset construction is not circular: human subjects supply MOS and distortion bounding boxes, and the grounding evaluations are scored against those human boxes with mIoU and Acc 0.5. The central effectiveness claim is also supported externally: ViDA-UGC-tuned models improve on Q-Bench, an independently constructed benchmark, and the Q-Bench description comparison uses human-written references, so the conclusion that ViDA-UGC enhances low-level perception and description is not wholly dependent on the authors' own evaluation. However, the ViDA-UGC-Bench description leg is a closed GPT-4o loop: the Step-2 distortion attributes are the benchmark's reference distortion information, the Step-3 and Step-4 data are GPT-4o CoT descriptions and GPT-4o-converted MCQs used as training targets, and the description judge is GPT-4o. The asserted professional revision is not quantified, so the loop is acknowledged but not demonstrated to be broken. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is involved. Because one major evaluation leg reduces by construction to matching GPT-4o style while the rest of the paper has independent support, a score of 4 is appropriate rather than 6 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dataset and benchmark rest on human-provided MOS and boxes as ground truth; on the assumption that GPT-4o, prompted with those boxes plus IQA expertise, writes distortion attributes and reasoning descriptions that humans endorse; on a ten-distortion taxonomy; and on the assumption that an automated GPT-4o judge's completeness, precision, and reasoning scores track human judgment. None of these is machine-checked, and GPT-4o appears on both the data-generation and evaluation side; human expert revision provides partial external anchorage.

free parameters (2)
  • Global/local box area-ratio threshold = 0.7
    Hand-set cutoff in Step 1 for treating a distortion box as global (largest global box kept) versus local (NMS applied). It defines the grounding task distribution but is not fitted to any reported performance objective.
  • MOS maximum-minimum spread threshold = 1 point on the 1-5 scale
    Human quality scores are rejected and re-annotated when the spread across five subjects exceeds 1. This hand-set data-cleaning rule shapes MOS labels in the dataset and benchmark.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Human annotators' MOS and bounding boxes are reliable ground truth for UGC image quality.
    Used in Step 1 and throughout; no inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported beyond the qualification exam.
  • domain assumption The ten UGC distortion types grouped under five dimensions are sufficient to support detailed UGC quality analysis.
    Expert-chosen taxonomy in the supplementary material; no ablation shows that omitted distortions would change the conclusions.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o produces accurate, low-bias distortion attributes and chain-of-thought descriptions when given human boxes, MOS, and IQA expertise.
    Relied on in Steps 2 and 3 for the 534K instruction samples; the paper itself concedes that generated data inevitably exhibit biases.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o's completeness, precision, and reasoning scores proxy human judgment of description quality.
    Used in the benchmark description evaluation; no human-model correlation study is supplied.
  • domain assumption MILP-based image sampling yields a representative distribution of UGC quality attributes.
    Used to draw the 11,534 images from source datasets; no diagnostic of the achieved feature balance is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ViDA-UGC: Detailed Image Quality Analysis via Visual Distortion Assessment for UGC Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJWR73JJ

@misc{pith2026250812605,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ViDA-UGC: Detailed Image Quality Analysis via Visual Distortion Assessment for UGC Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJWR73JJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12605}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have introduced a paradigm shift for Image Quality Assessment (IQA) from unexplainable image quality scoring to explainable IQA, demonstrating practical applications like quality control and optimization guidance. However, current explainable IQA methods not only inadequately use the same distortion criteria to evaluate both User-Generated Content (UGC) and AI-Generated Content (AIGC) images, but also lack detailed quality analysis for monitoring image quality and guiding image restoration. In this study, we establish the first large-scale Visual Distortion Assessment Instruction Tuning Dataset for UGC images, termed ViDA-UGC, which comprises 11K images with fine-grained quality grounding, detailed quality perception, and reasoning quality description data. This dataset is constructed through a distortion-oriented pipeline, which involves human subject annotation and a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) assessment framework. This framework guides GPT-4o to generate quality descriptions by identifying and analyzing UGC distortions, which helps capturing rich low-level visual features that inherently correlate with distortion patterns. Moreover, we carefully select 476 images with corresponding 6,149 question answer pairs from ViDA-UGC and invite a professional team to ensure the accuracy and quality of GPT-generated information. The selected and revised data further contribute to the first UGC distortion assessment benchmark, termed ViDA-UGC-Bench. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the ViDA-UGC and CoT framework for consistently enhancing various image quality analysis abilities across multiple base MLLMs on ViDA-UGC-Bench and Q-Bench, even surpassing GPT-4o.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Visual Distortion Detection in UGC Images Using Large Multimodal Models

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    VIGIL-8B, an LMM-based detector with synchronized multi-layer decoding, achieves state-of-the-art localization of synthetic and authentic image distortions in UGC photos.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Agustsson, E.; and Timofte, R. 2017. Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 126--135

    2017

  4. [4]

    Antsiferova, A.; Lavrushkin, S.; Smirnov, M.; Gushchin, A.; Vatolin, D.; and Kulikov, D. 2022. Video compression dataset and benchmark of learning-based video-quality metrics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 13814--13825

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bai, J.; Bai, S.; Yang, S.; Wang, S.; Tan, S.; Wang, P.; Lin, J.; Zhou, C.; and Zhou, J. 2023. Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond. arXiv:2308.12966

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Besta, M.; Blach, N.; Kubicek, A.; Gerstenberger, R.; Podstawski, M.; Gianinazzi, L.; Gajda, J.; Lehmann, T.; Niewiadomski, H.; Nyczyk, P.; et al. 2024. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 17682--17690

    2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, C.; Yang, S.; Wu, H.; Liao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, A.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; and Lin, W. 2024 a . Q-ground: Image quality grounding with large multi-modality models. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 486--495

    2024

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Xu, S.; Xiong, H.; Zeng, Y.; Guo, J.; Wang, S.; Yuan, C.; Li, B.; et al. 2024 b . SEAGULL: No-reference Image Quality Assessment for Regions of Interest via Vision-Language Instruction Tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10161

    arXiv 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Z.; Wang, W.; Cao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Z.; Cui, E.; Zhu, J.; Ye, S.; Tian, H.; Liu, Z.; et al. 2024 c . Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chen, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, W.; Su, W.; Chen, G.; Xing, S.; Zhong, M.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, X.; Lu, L.; et al. 2024 d . Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and patte...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Li, W.; Pei, R.; Song, F.; Min, X.; Liu, X.; Yuan, X.; Guo, Y.; and Zhang, Y. 2024 e . Grounding-IQA: Multimodal Language Grounding Model for Image Quality Assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17237

    2024

  4. [12]

    Fang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zeng, Y.; Ma, K.; and Wang, Z. 2020. Perceptual quality assessment of smartphone photography. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3677--3686

    2020

  5. [13]

    R.; and Huang, W

    Feng, C.; Zhong, Y.; Gao, Y.; Scott, M. R.; and Huang, W. 2021. Tood: Task-aligned one-stage object detection. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3490--3499. IEEE Computer Society

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ghadiyaram, D.; and Bovik, A. C. 2015. Massive online crowdsourced study of subjective and objective picture quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(1): 372--387

    2015

  7. [15]

    Guo, D.; Yang, D.; Zhang, H.; Song, J.; Zhang, R.; Xu, R.; Zhu, Q.; Ma, S.; Wang, P.; Bi, X.; et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Han, S.; Fan, H.; Fu, J.; Li, L.; Li, T.; Cui, J.; Wang, Y.; Tai, Y.; Sun, J.; Guo, C.; et al. 2024. EvalMuse-40K: A Reliable and Fine-Grained Benchmark with Comprehensive Human Annotations for Text-to-Image Generation Model Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18150

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hosang, J.; Benenson, R.; and Schiele, B. 2017. Learning non-maximum suppression. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4507--4515

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hosu, V.; Lin, H.; Sziranyi, T.; and Saupe, D. 2020. KonIQ-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 4041--4056

    2020

  11. [19]

    Huang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Zha, Z.-J.; Chen, Z.; and Guo, B. 2024. Visualcritic: Making lmms perceive visual quality like humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12806

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ignatov, A.; Kobyshev, N.; Timofte, R.; Vanhoey, K.; and Van Gool, L. 2017. Dslr-quality photos on mobile devices with deep convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 3277--3285

    2017

  13. [21]

    ISO. 2005. ISO 20462-1:2005 Photography -- Psychophysical experimental methods for estimating image quality -- Part 1: Overview of psychophysical elements. https://www.iso.org/standard/38330.html. Accessed: July 23, 2025

    2005

  14. [22]

    ISO. 2015. ISO/IEC 29170-2:2015 Information technology -- Advanced image coding and evaluation -- Part 2: Evaluation procedure for nearly lossless coding. https://www.iso.org/standard/66094.html. Accessed: August 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    ITU-R. 2000. Recommendation BT.500-10: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.500. Accessed: March 1, 2013

    2000

  16. [24]

    ITU-R. 2019. Recommendation BT.500-14: Methodologies for the subjective assessment of the quality of television images. https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.500-14-201910-S/en. Accessed: May 4, 2020

    2019

  17. [25]

    Jaech, A.; Kalai, A.; Lerer, A.; Richardson, A.; El-Kishky, A.; Low, A.; Helyar, A.; Madry, A.; Beutel, A.; Carney, A.; et al. 2024. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S.; and Chao, D

    Jinjin, G.; Haoming, C.; Haoyu, C.; Xiaoxing, Y.; Ren, J. S.; and Chao, D. 2020. Pipal: a large-scale image quality assessment dataset for perceptual image restoration. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Kazemzadeh, S.; Ordonez, V.; Matten, M.; and Berg, T. 2014. Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), 787--798

    2014

  20. [28]

    Ke, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Milanfar, P.; and Yang, F. 2021. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 5148--5157

    2021

  21. [29]

    u ttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rockt \

    Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; Petroni, F.; Karpukhin, V.; Goyal, N.; K \"u ttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rockt \"a schel, T.; et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 9459--9474

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lin, H.; Hosu, V.; and Saupe, D. 2019. KADID-10k: A large-scale artificially distorted IQA database. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 1--3. IEEE

    2019

  23. [31]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 1...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; and Lee, Y. J. 2024 a . Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 26296--26306

    2024

  25. [33]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Wu, Q.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 34892--34916

    2023

  26. [34]

    Liu, S.; Zeng, Z.; Ren, T.; Li, F.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Jiang, Q.; Li, C.; Yang, J.; Su, H.; et al. 2024 b . Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 38--55. Springer

    2024

  27. [35]

    L.; and Murphy, K

    Mao, J.; Huang, J.; Toshev, A.; Camburu, O.; Yuille, A. L.; and Murphy, K. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11--20

    2016

  28. [36]

    Niu, H. 2022. LIVE-FB large-scale Social Picture Quality Database and deep image quality model creation. Ph.D. thesis

    2022

  29. [37]

    Nuutinen, M.; Virtanen, T.; Vaahteranoksa, M.; Vuori, T.; Oittinen, P.; and H \"a kkinen, J. 2016 a . CVD2014—A database for evaluating no-reference video quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(7): 3073--3086

    2016

  30. [38]

    Nuutinen, M.; Virtanen, T.; Vaahteranoksa, M.; Vuori, T.; Oittinen, P.; and H \"a kkinen, J. 2016 b . CVD2014—A database for evaluating no-reference video quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(7): 3073--3086

    2016

  31. [39]

    Wang, H.; Li, G.; Liu, S.; and Kuo, C.-C. J. 2021. ICME 2021 UGC-VQA Challenge. http://ugcvqa.com/. Accessed: 2021-08

    2021

  32. [40]

    C.; and Loy, C

    Wang, J.; Chan, K. C.; and Loy, C. C. 2023. Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, 2555--2563

    2023

  33. [41]

    Wang, P.; Bai, S.; Tan, S.; Wang, S.; Fan, Z.; Bai, J.; Chen, K.; Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Ge, W.; et al. 2024. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model's perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C.; Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z.; Bovik, A. C.; Sheikh, H. R.; and Simoncelli, E. P. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4): 600--612

    2004

  35. [43]

    Y.; Guu, K.; Yu, A

    Wei, J.; Bosma, M.; Zhao, V. Y.; Guu, K.; Yu, A. W.; Lester, B.; Du, N.; Dai, A. M.; and Le, Q. V. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    V.; Zhou, D.; et al

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 24824--24837

    2022

  37. [45]

    Wu, H.; Zhang, E.; Liao, L.; Chen, C.; Hou, J.; Wang, A.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; and Lin, W. 2023. Exploring video quality assessment on user generated contents from aesthetic and technical perspectives. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 20...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Wu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, E.; Chen, C.; Liao, L.; Wang, A.; Li, C.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; Zhai, G.; et al. 2024 a . Q-Bench: A Benchmark for General-Purpose Foundation Models on Low-level Vision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representation

    2024

  39. [47]

    Wu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, E.; Chen, C.; Liao, L.; Wang, A.; Xu, K.; Li, C.; Hou, J.; Zhai, G.; et al. 2024 b . Q-instruct: Improving low-level visual abilities for multi-modality foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogn...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wu, H.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, E.; Chen, C.; Liao, L.; Li, C.; Wang, A.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; et al. 2024 c . Towards open-ended visual quality comparison. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 360--377. Springer

    2024

  41. [49]

    Yang, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, F.; Zou, X.; Li, C.; and Gao, J. 2023. Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Yao, S.; Yu, D.; Zhao, J.; Shafran, I.; Griffiths, T.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K. 2023 a . Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 11809--11822

    2023

  43. [51]

    Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y. 2023 b . React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Ye, Q.; Xu, H.; Xu, G.; Ye, J.; Yan, M.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, J.; Hu, A.; Shi, P.; Shi, Y.; et al. 2023. mplug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ye, Q.; Xu, H.; Ye, J.; Yan, M.; Hu, A.; Liu, H.; Qian, Q.; Zhang, J.; and Huang, F. 2024. mplug-owl2: Revolutionizing multi-modal large language model with modality collaboration. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 13040--13051

    2024

  46. [54]

    You, Z.; Gu, J.; Li, Z.; Cai, X.; Zhu, K.; Dong, C.; and Xue, T. 2024 a . Descriptive image quality assessment in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18842

    2024

  47. [55]

    You, Z.; Li, Z.; Gu, J.; Yin, Z.; Xue, T.; and Dong, C. 2024 b . Depicting beyond scores: Advancing image quality assessment through multi-modal language models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 259--276. Springer

    2024

  48. [56]

    C.; and Berg, T

    Yu, L.; Poirson, P.; Yang, S.; Berg, A. C.; and Berg, T. L. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14, 69--85. Springer

    2016

  49. [57]

    Zhang, P.; Dong, X.; Wang, B.; Cao, Y.; Xu, C.; Ouyang, L.; Zhao, Z.; Duan, H.; Zhang, S.; Ding, S.; et al. 2023 a . Internlm-xcomposer: A vision-language large model for advanced text-image comprehension and composition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15112

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 586--595

    2018

  51. [59]

    Zhang, Z.; Wu, H.; Zhang, E.; Zhai, G.; and Lin, W. 2024. Q-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal foundation models on low-level vision from single images to pairs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2024

  52. [60]

    Zhang, Z.; Wu, W.; Sun, W.; Tu, D.; Lu, W.; Min, X.; Chen, Y.; and Zhai, G. 2023 b . MD-VQA: Multi-dimensional quality assessment for UGC live videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1746--1755

    2023

  53. [61]

    Zhao, J.; Fang, M.; Pan, S.; Yin, W.; and Pechenizkiy, M. 2023. Gptbias: A comprehensive framework for evaluating bias in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06315

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zhu, J.; Wang, W.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Z.; Ye, S.; Gu, L.; Tian, H.; Duan, Y.; Su, W.; Shao, J.; et al. 2025. Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Zong, Z.; Song, G.; and Liu, Y. 2023. Detrs with collaborative hybrid assignments training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 6748--6758

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.