RGC-VQA: An Exploration Database for Robotic-Generated Video Quality Assessment

Guangtao Zhai; Huiyu Duan; Jiangyong Ying; Jianing Jin; Liu Yang; Sijing Wu; Xiongkuo Min; Yunhao Li; Yushuo Zheng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

RGC-VQA: An Exploration Database for Robotic-Generated Video Quality Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Robotic-generated video is a distinct content class; the paper builds the first 2,100-video quality benchmark for it and finds all 11 existing VQA models underperform.

desk verdict A useful first dataset for robot-generated video quality, but the wheeled-robot category looks like ordinary dashcam footage from human-driven cars, and the MOS formula has a bug; fixable but requires major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23852 v2 pith:HKWJI2U5 submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV

Jianing Jin , Jiangyong Ying , Huiyu Duan , Liu Yang , Sijing Wu , Yunhao Li , Yushuo Zheng , Xiongkuo Min

show 1 more author

Guangtao Zhai

This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords VideoqualityassessmentRobotic-generatedcontentRGCDdatabaseMeanopinionscoreEgocentricNo-referenceVQAbenchmarkHuman-robotinteraction

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 proposes Robotic-Generated Content (RGC) as a category of video distinct from professionally generated and user generated content: footage captured from the egocentric perspective of robots. To make that category measurable, it builds RGCD, the first quality-assessment database for such video, with 2,100 clips evenly split among drones, wheeled robots, and robot arms, each scored by human viewers in a controlled lab study yielding mean opinion scores. Benchmarking 11 state-of-the-art video quality models on RGCD, it finds that none predicts human quality judgments reliably across all categories, with the largest gaps on drone and wheeled-robot footage. The paper's case is that this failure is systematic rather than incidental, so RGC needs models that account for machine-specific motion, egocentric viewpoints, and device-induced artifacts.

What carries the argument

The central object is RGCD itself, a corpus built to be the measuring instrument: 700 drone clips, 700 wheeled-robot clips, and 700 robotic-arm clips, trimmed to 4-12 seconds and drawn from SLAM, driving, aerial, and manipulation datasets plus real streaming-platform footage. Quality is captured through a single-stimulus absolute category rating (SSACR) experiment in which each clip is shown alone and rated on a continuous 0-5 scale, then z-score normalized and averaged into mean opinion scores. The benchmark protocol standardizes a 4:1 train/test split and reports SRCC, KRCC, and PLCC for 11 models, which is what exposes the performance gap.

What would settle it

Collect authentic egocentric video from humanoid or quadruped robots in locomotion, rate it under the same SSACR protocol, and rerun the benchmark; if these clips produce MOS distributions and model rankings that match the current robot category, the category assumption holds, while a divergence would show that RGCD's robot arm results do not generalize to mobile humanoid robots.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that robot-view video forms a coherent but unstudied content regime whose perceptual quality cannot be captured by models built for professional or user content. The evidence is RGCD: 2,100 in-the-wild clips from three robot types, 31,500 lab ratings from 15 subjects, and a benchmark showing that the best existing no-reference models reach only moderate correlation with human scores, with performance varying sharply by robot category. From this the authors conclude that no existing VQA model is extensively reliable for RGC and that RGC-tailored evaluation is a necessary next step.

Load-bearing premise

The 'robot' category is assumed to represent humanoid-robot video, but it is built almost entirely from robotic-arm wrist cameras because authentic humanoid locomotion footage could not be found.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

RGCD gives the VQA community a public testbed on which claims of general video-quality ability can be checked against robot-view content.
Existing no-reference VQA models cannot be assumed ready for teleoperation, surveillance, delivery, or search-and-rescue footage without retraining or adaptation.
Models that perform well on robot-arm clips, such as TLVQM and SimpleVQA, may benefit from the strong repetitive motion cues in that category; drone and wheeled footage remains the harder test.
DOVER's weaker showing hints that aesthetic-oriented quality factors can hurt on RGC, where task-relevant clarity matters more than framing.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate testable extension is to fine-tune the strongest baselines (SimpleVQA, FAST-VQA) on half of RGCD and evaluate on the held-out half; if a generic architecture then reaches near-human correlation, the bottleneck is domain training data rather than model architecture.
Because the robot category is assembled from wrist-camera manipulation footage, the benchmark says little about humanoid or quadruped locomotion; authentic egocentric locomotion data, when it appears, might change the category rankings.
The RGC concept plausibly extends beyond the three device types to autonomous vehicle camera feeds, surgical robots, and inspection bots, so the database format could be reused rather than rebuilt.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a genuinely useful dataset contribution. RGCD is the first MOS-labeled VQA database aimed at robot-generated video — 2,100 clips across drones, wheeled robots, and robotic arms, with a real in-lab subjective experiment and 31.5K ratings. The benchmark showing that existing VQA models transfer poorly to this content is a find worth reporting. But the central provenance claim is shaky. The 'wheel' category is sourced from autonomous-driving datasets [1,11,30,31,48]; at least JAAD, BDD100K, KITTI, and Ford Campus are ordinary dashcam recordings from human-driven cars, not video captured by robots operating autonomously or under remote control — which is the paper's own definition of RGC. If that is correct, a third of the database is not RGC, and the benchmark conclusion is confounded by driving-domain content rather than robotic generation. This is the most serious issue, and it is verifiable from the source metadata. The paper is honest elsewhere: in Sec. 3.1 it admits it could not find authentic egocentric locomotion data for humanoid or quadruped robots, so the 'robot' category is largely wrist-camera footage from robotic-arm datasets. That honesty is good, but it narrows the claim. What the paper does well: the gap is real, no prior VQA dataset covers this content, and the subjective experiment follows ITU-R BT.500 with outlier rejection and a sensible rating protocol. The feature and MOS distribution analyses are reasonable. Benchmarking 11 methods with official implementations is standard practice. The soft spots beyond provenance: Eq. (3) is internally inconsistent — it multiplies the rescaled z-scores by the subject's standard deviation, which contradicts the described z-score averaging; if literally used, the MOS is not a simple mean and the standard analysis is off. The benchmark uses a single 4:1 split with no error bars or significance tests, so small SRCC differences (around 0.02) are not meaningful. The dataset URL and code cannot be verified from the paper alone. These are all addressable. The wheel category can be re-curated or re-benchmarked on a robot-only subset; the MOS formula can be corrected; multi-split with confidence intervals is routine. If the authors fix these, this is a solid MM-level dataset paper. As is, I would want major revision, not desk rejection. For peer review: yes, send it — the database fills a real niche and the issues are testable, not fatal. But the referee should demand provenance verification for all 700 wheel videos and a corrected MOS pipeline.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Robotic-Generated Content (RGC) as a new content taxonomy and presents RGCD, a database of 2,100 egocentric videos from drones, wheeled robots, and robot arms, together with subjective quality ratings from 15 lab subjects. The authors describe the collection process, provide statistical content and MOS analyses, and benchmark 11 existing VQA models plus five zero-shot evaluations, concluding that current VQA models are not well suited to robotic-generated video quality assessment.

Significance. If the provenance and analysis issues are resolved, RGCD would be a genuinely useful community resource: it is, to my knowledge, the first public database explicitly targeting robot-generated video quality, it covers diverse sources and platform types, and the benchmark experiments give a first indication of a domain gap for existing VQA models. The paper is empirical and does not rely on circular derivation; the database release and the concrete benchmark numbers are the substantive contributions. The main risks are whether the data actually satisfy the paper's own definition of RGC and whether the reported correlations are stable.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The MOS formula multiplies each rescaled z-score by the subject standard deviation sigma_i, which contradicts the described averaging of z-scores and the stated [0, 100] scale. As written, MOS_j is not the average of the rescaled z-scores z'_ij and can fall outside the plotted MOS range used in Figure 4 and Table 1. Please correct Eq. (3) to a plain average over z'_ij, or explicitly justify the sigma_i factor, and then recompute any affected MOS-based analyses and benchmark correlations.
[Section 3.1] The 'wheeled robot' category is sourced from autonomous-driving datasets [1, 11, 30, 31, 48], but several of these, including JAAD [31], BDD100K [48], and the traffic-accident anticipation dataset [1], are typically recorded by dashboard cameras in human-driven vehicles. Such footage does not satisfy the paper's own definition of RGC as egocentric video captured by robots operating autonomously or under remote control. Since the wheel category constitutes one third of RGCD, the central claim that RGCD is a robotic-generated-content database is at stake. Please provide per-source evidence that each included clip was captured by a robot, or re-run the database construction and benchmark on a subset that excludes human-driven footage.
[Section 4.1.3, Table 1] The benchmark results are reported from a single 4:1 train/test split with no confidence intervals, significance tests, or repeated-split statistics. The paper's main conclusion is that existing VQA models are unsuited to RGC; that conclusion needs to be robust to the choice of split. Please report results over multiple random splits with mean and standard deviation, or otherwise demonstrate that the numerical differences in Table 1 are not artifacts of a single data partition.
[Section 3.1, Figure 2] The category labeled 'robot' (and described as 'humanoid robot' in the text) is acknowledged to consist of wrist-camera and other egocentric views from robotic-arm manipulation datasets such as X-Embodiment and ARIO, with the authors explicitly stating that authentic locomotion data for humanoid or quadruped robots could not be found. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless describe the database as covering three robot types including humanoid robots. This overstates the content taxonomy; the category name and the associated claims about humanoid-robot video should be corrected.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'A extensive benchmark experiment' (Section 4.1.1), 'out database' and 'posse' (Section 3.4.1), and 'in lab subjective experiment' (Section 3.2). The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
[References] The text in Section 2.1 and related work refers to 'Ego4D' when discussing first-person human perspective, but reference [13] is the Ego-Exo4D paper. Please correct the citation or the reference entry so that the cited work matches the text.
[Section 3.2] The subjective experiment uses 15 subjects, all described as college students, with no report of inter-rater agreement, per-video confidence intervals, or screen/calibration details beyond the viewing distance and resolution. Since the MOS values are the ground truth for the whole database, adding such details and confidence information would substantially improve the reproducibility and credibility of the database.
[Figure 2] The source-proportion pie charts in Figure 2 use a 'bilibili+others' label without a legend explaining what 'others' includes. Given that Section 3.1 states that 'nearly 200' videos came from Bilibili, clarifying the exact contribution of Bilibili and the composition of 'others' would remove an apparent ambiguity.
[Section 4.3, Table 1] The distinction between the zero-shot evaluation of the five deep models and the fine-tuned rows marked with '*' is not fully explained in the text. Please state explicitly which rows in Table 1 correspond to zero-shot inference with official pretrained weights and which rows were trained or fine-tuned on RGCD, since this affects how readers interpret the generalization claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the RGCD database and benchmark are empirically self-contained.

full rationale

This paper is a dataset construction and benchmarking study rather than a derivation of a result from assumptions it must also prove. RGCD is built by collecting 2,100 videos from named sources, annotating them with MOS through a standard in-lab subjective experiment, and then benchmarking 11 existing VQA models against those annotations with SRCC, KRCC, and PLCC. The central claim, that existing VQA models are not well suited to robotic-generated content, is a direct empirical measurement from held-out test splits, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations present in the paper (e.g., SimpleVQA as a baseline, embodied-image-quality related work) are used as comparison methods or background context and do not carry the load of the database or benchmark claim. The acknowledged limitation in Section 3.1, that authentic humanoid locomotion footage could not be found, is a data-availability caveat, and the separate concern that wheeled-robot videos may include human-driven dashcam footage is a question of dataset provenance and construct validity, not a circular reduction. No equation or definition in the paper is used both as input and as output, so no specific circular step can be exhibited with quoted evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the subjective ratings being meaningful and representative, on the category labels matching the actual content, and on the benchmark protocols being fair. No fitted parameters are introduced by the paper itself; the benchmark models use their own pre-existing or fine-tuned parameters.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Human subjective ratings from 15 college students in a lab setting are a valid proxy for general human perception of video quality.
Section 3.2: The experiment uses 15 recruited college students, not a diverse population, and follows ITU-R BT.500 recommendations. This is standard but an assumption about generalizability.
domain assumption The z-scores of each subject follow a standard Gaussian distribution within [-3, +3], justifying the linear rescaling in Eq. (2).
Section 3.3, Eq. (2): Standard in VQA MOS processing but an assumption about rating distributions.
domain assumption The collected videos from SLAM, driving, and manipulation datasets accurately represent the broader category of robotic-generated content.
Section 3.1: The authors acknowledge gaps, e.g., no authentic humanoid locomotion video, so representativeness is assumed rather than demonstrated.
domain assumption Existing VQA models are evaluated with their official implementations and default configurations, and the reported performance is a fair reflection of their capability.
Section 4.1.1: The paper states this but provides no verification or ablation of configurations.

invented entities (1)

Robotic-Generated Content (RGC) as a content taxonomy category independent evidence
purpose: Introduces a taxonomy label for egocentric video captured by robots, distinguishing it from PGC and UGC.
This is a terminological contribution rather than a postulated physical entity. The category is directly observable in the collected data, so it does not carry the 'graviton' risk.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RGC-VQA: An Exploration Database for Robotic-Generated Video Quality Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKWJI2U5

@misc{pith2026250623852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RGC-VQA: An Exploration Database for Robotic-Generated Video Quality Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKWJI2U5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23852}
}

read the original abstract

As camera-equipped robotic platforms become increasingly integrated into daily life, robotic-generated videos have begun to appear on streaming media platforms, enabling us to envision a future where humans and robots coexist. We innovatively propose the concept of Robotic-Generated Content (RGC) to term these videos generated from egocentric perspective of robots. The perceptual quality of RGC videos is critical in human-robot interaction scenarios, and RGC videos exhibit unique distortions and visual requirements that differ markedly from those of professionally-generated content (PGC) videos and user-generated content (UGC) videos. However, dedicated research on quality assessment of RGC videos is still lacking. To address this gap and to support broader robotic applications, we establish the first Robotic-Generated Content Database (RGCD), which contains a total of 2,100 videos drawn from three robot categories and sourced from diverse platforms. A subjective VQA experiment is conducted subsequently to assess human visual perception of robotic-generated videos. Finally, we conduct a benchmark experiment to evaluate the performance of 11 state-of-the-art VQA models on our database. Experimental results reveal significant limitations in existing VQA models when applied to complex, robotic-generated content, highlighting a critical need for RGC-specific VQA models. Our RGCD is publicly available at: https://github.com/IntMeGroup/RGC-VQA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23852 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** We initiate the concept of Robot-Generated Content (RGC), referring to egocentric video captured by robots operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** We establish the first Robot-Generated Content Database (RGCD) to study the RGC quality assessment problem. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The feature distributions of RGCD in terms of different categories: (a) the full database, (b) drone, (c) wheeled robot, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The MOS distributions of RGCD in terms of different categories: (a) the full database, (b) drone, (c) wheeled robot, (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[31]

Amir Rasouli, Iuliia Kotseruba, and John K Tsotsos. 2017. Are They Going to Cross? A Benchmark Dataset and Baseline for Pedestrian Crosswalk Behavior. In ICCVW. 206–213

work page 2017
[48]

Haoning Wu, Erli Zhang, Liang Liao, Chaofeng Chen, Jingwen Hou, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. 2023. Exploring video quality assessment on user generated contents from aesthetic and technical perspectives. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 20144–20154

work page 2023
[1]

Wentao Bao, Qi Yu, and Yu Kong. 2020. Uncertainty-based Traffic Accident Anticipation with Spatio-Temporal Relational Learning. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’20) . ACM, 2682–2690. doi:10.1145/3394171.3413827

arXiv 2020
[2]

Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Jo- ern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achtelik, and Roland Siegwart

work page
[3]

Nived Chebrolu, Philipp Lottes, Alexander Schaefer, Wera Winterhalter, Wol- fram Burgard, and Cyrill Stachniss. 2017. Agricultural robot dataset for plant classification, localization and mapping on sugar beet fields. The International Journal of Robotics Research (2017). doi:10.1177/0278364917720510

work page doi:10.1177/0278364917720510 2017
[4]

Baoliang Chen, Lingyu Zhu, Guo Li, Fangbo Lu, Hongfei Fan, and Shiqi Wang

work page
[5]

Younggun Cho. 2025. Awesome SLAM Datasets. https://github.com/ youngguncho/awesome-slam-datasets. Accessed: 2025-05-28

work page 2025
[6]

Open X-Embodiment Collaboration, Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, Albert Tung, Alex Bewley, Alex Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Rai, Anchit Gupta, Andrew Wang, Andrey Kolobov, Anikait Singh, Animesh Garg, An...

arXiv 2023

Show all 57 references

[7]

Francesca De Simone, Marco Tagliasacchi, Matteo Naccari, Stefano Tubaro, and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2010. A H. 264/AVC video database for the evaluation of quality metrics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . 2430–2433

2010
[8]

Jeffrey Delmerico, Titus Cieslewski, Henri Rebecq, Matthias Faessler, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2019. Are We Ready for Autonomous Drone Racing? The UZH-FPV Drone Racing Dataset. In IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA)

2019
[9]

Hao-Shu Fang, Hongjie Fang, Zhenyu Tang, Jirong Liu, Junbo Wang, Haoyi Zhu, and Cewu Lu. 2023. RH20T: A Robotic Dataset for Learning Diverse Skills in One-Shot. In RSS 2023 Workshop on Learning for Task and Motion Planning

2023
[10]

Yao Mu Fourier ActionNet Team. 2025. ActionNet: A dataset for dexterous bimanual manipulation. (2025)

2025
[11]

Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. 2013. Vision meets Robotics: The KITTI Dataset. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR) (2013)

2013
[12]

Deepti Ghadiyaram, Janice Pan, Alan C Bovik, Anush Krishna Moorthy, Prasanjit Panda, and Kai-Chieh Yang. 2017. In-capture mobile video distortions: A study of subjective behavior and objective algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (TCSVT) 2...

2017
[13]

Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Lorenzo Torresani, Kris Kitani, Jitendra Malik, Triantafyllos Afouras, Kumar Ashutosh, Vijay Baiyya, Siddhant Bansal, Bikram Boote, Eugene Byrne, Zach Chavis, Joya Chen, Feng Cheng, Fu-Jen Chu, Sean Crane, Avijit Dasgupta, Jing Dong, Maria Esc...

2024 arXiv
[14]

Wang Haiqiang, Li Gary, Liu Shan, and Kuo C.-C. Jay. 2021. ICME 2021 UGC-VQA Challenge. http://ugcvqa.com/. [Online]

2021
[15]

Vlad Hosu, Franz Hahn, Mohsen Jenadeleh, Hanhe Lin, Hui Men, Tamás Szirányi, Shujun Li, and Dietmar Saupe. 2017. The Konstanz natural video database (KoNViD-1k). In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). 1–6

2017
[16]

Bilibili Inc. 2010. Bilibili. https://www.bilibili.com

2010
[17]

Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, Peter David Fagan, Joey Hejna, Masha Itkina, Marion Lepert, Yecheng Jason Ma, Patrick Tree Mill...

2024
[18]

Jari Korhonen. 2019. Two-level approach for no-reference consumer video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 28, 12 (2019), 5923–5938

2019
[19]

Chunyi Li, Yuan Tian, Xiaoyue Ling, Zicheng Zhang, Haodong Duan, Haoning Wu, Ziheng Jia, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Guo Lu, Weisi Lin, and Guangtao Zhai. 2025. Image Quality Assessment: From Human to Machine Preference. arXiv:2503.10078 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.1007...

2025 arXiv
[20]

Chunyi Li, Jiaohao Xiao, Jianbo Zhang, Farong Wen, Zicheng Zhang, Yuan Tian, Xiangyang Zhu, Xiaohong Liu, Zhengxue Cheng, Weisi Lin, and Guangtao Zhai
[21]

Dingquan Li, Tingting Jiang, and Ming Jiang. 2019. Quality Assessment of In-the- Wild Videos. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM). 2351–2359

2019
[22]

Yang Li, Shengbin Meng, Xinfeng Zhang, Shiqi Wang, Yue Wang, and Siwei Ma. 2020. UGC-VIDEO: Perceptual quality assessment of user-generated videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR). 35–38

2020
[23]

Yiting Lu, Xin Li, Yajing Pei, Kun Yuan, Qizhi Xie, Yunpeng Qu, Ming Sun, Chao Zhou, and Zhibo Chen. 2024. Kvq: Kwai video quality assessment for short-form videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 25963–25973

2024
[24]

Andras Majdik, Charles Till, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2017. The Zurich urban micro aerial vehicle dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research 36 (04 2017), 027836491770223. doi:10.1177/0278364917702237

2017 doi
[25]

completely blind

Anish Mittal, Rajiv Soundararajan, and Alan C Bovik. 2012. Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Processing Letters (SPL) 20, 3 (2012), 209–212

2012
[26]

Anush Krishna Moorthy, Lark Kwon Choi, Alan Conrad Bovik, and Gustavo De Veciana. 2012. Video quality assessment on mobile devices: Subjective, be- havioral and objective studies. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing (JSTSP) 6, 6 (2012), 652–671

2012
[27]

Lichao Mou, Yuansheng Hua, Pu Jin, and Xiao Xiang Zhu. 2020. ERA: A Dataset and Deep Learning Benchmark for Event Recognition in Aerial Videos. arXiv:2001.11394 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11394

2020 arXiv
[28]

Mikko Nuutinen, Toni Virtanen, Mikko Vaahteranoksa, Tero Vuori, Pirkko Oit- tinen, and Jukka Häkkinen. 2016. CVD2014—A database for evaluating no- reference video quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 25, 7 (2016), 3073–3086

2016
[29]

Sangmin Oh, Anthony Hoogs, Amitha Perera, Naresh Cuntoor, Chia-Chih Chen, Jong Taek Lee, Saurajit Mukherjee, J.K. Aggarwal, Hyungtae Lee, Larry Davis, Eran Swears, Xiaoyang Wang, Qiang Ji, Kishore Reddy, Mubarak Shah, Carl Vondrick, Hamed Pirsiavash, Deva Ramanan, Jenny Yuen, ...

2011
[30]

McBride, and Ryan M

Gaurav Pandey, James R. McBride, and Ryan M. Eustice. 2011. Ford campus vision and lidar data set. International Journal of Robotics Research 30, 13 (2011), 1543–1552

2011
[32]

BT Series. 2012. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. Recommendation ITU-R BT (2012), 500–13

2012
[33]

Kalpana Seshadrinathan, Rajiv Soundararajan, Alan Conrad Bovik, and Lawrence K Cormack. 2010. Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 19, 6 (2010), 1427–1441

2010
[34]

Zeina Sinno and Alan Conrad Bovik. 2018. Large-scale study of perceptual video quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 28, 2 (2018), 612–627

2018
[35]

Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Wei Lu, and Guangtao Zhai. 2022. A deep learning based no-reference quality assessment model for ugc videos. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) . 856–865

2022
[36]

Zhengzhong Tu, Yilin Wang, Neil Birkbeck, Balu Adsumilli, and Alan C Bovik
[37]

Zhengzhong Tu, Xiangxu Yu, Yilin Wang, Neil Birkbeck, Balu Adsumilli, and Alan C Bovik. 2021. RAPIQUE: Rapid and accurate video quality prediction of user generated content. IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing 2 (2021), 425–440

2021
[38]

Unitree Robotics. 2024. Unitree Robotics Open Source Resources. https://www. unitree.com/opensource. Accessed: 2025-05-28

2024
[39]

Haiqiang Wang, Weihao Gan, Sudeng Hu, Joe Yuchieh Lin, Lina Jin, Longguang Song, Ping Wang, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anne Aaron, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2016. MCL-JCV: a JND-based H. 264/AVC video quality assessment dataset. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE International Conference on Imag...

2016
[40]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 30 (2021), 4449–4464

UGC-VQA: Benchmarking blind video quality assessment for user generated content. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 30 (2021), 4449–4464

2021
[41]

Yilin Wang, Junjie Ke, Hossein Talebi, Joong Gon Yim, Neil Birkbeck, Balu Adsumilli, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. 2021. Rich features for percep- tual quality assessment of UGC videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) ....

2021
[42]

Zhiqiang Wang, Hao Zheng, Yunshuang Nie, Wenjun Xu, Qingwei Wang, Hua Ye, Zhe Li, Kaidong Zhang, Xuewen Cheng, Wanxi Dong, Chang Cai, Liang Lin, Feng Zheng, and Xiaodan Liang. 2024. All Robots in One: A New Stan- dard and Unified Dataset for Versatile, General-Purpose Embodied...

2024 arXiv
[43]

Haoning Wu, Chaofeng Chen, Jingwen Hou, Liang Liao, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. 2022. Fast-vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with fragment sampling. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Springer, 538–554

2022
[44]

Yilin Wang, Sasi Inguva, and Balu Adsumilli. 2019. YouTube UGC dataset for video compression research. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP) . 1–5

2019
[45]

Jingtao Xu, Peng Ye, Qiaohong Li, Haiqing Du, Yong Liu, and David Doermann
[46]

Wufeng Xue, Lei Zhang, and Xuanqin Mou. 2013. Learning without human scores for blind image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 995–1002

2013
[47]

Zhenqiang Ying, Maniratnam Mandal, Deepti Ghadiyaram, and Alan Bovik
[49]

Xiangxu Yu, Neil Birkbeck, Yilin Wang, Christos G Bampis, Balu Adsumilli, and Alan C Bovik. 2021. Predicting the quality of compressed videos with pre-existing distortions. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 30 (2021), 7511–7526

2021
[50]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 25, 9 (2016), 4444–4457

Blind image quality assessment based on high order statistics aggregation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP) 25, 9 (2016), 4444–4457

2016
[51]

Zicheng Zhang, Wei Wu, Wei Sun, Danyang Tu, Wei Lu, Xiongkuo Min, Ying Chen, and Guangtao Zhai. 2023. MD-VQA: Multi-dimensional quality assessment for UGC live videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 1746–1755

2023
[53]

In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Patch-vq:’patching up’the video quality problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 14019–14029
[54]

Fisher Yu, Haofeng Chen, Xin Wang, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Darrell. 2020. BDD100K: A Diverse Driving Dataset for Heterogeneous Multitask Learning. arXiv:1805.04687 [cs.CV] https: //arxiv.org/abs/1805.04687

2020 arXiv
[56]

Jianbo Zhang, Chunyi Li, Liang Yuan, Guoquan Zheng, Jie Hao, and Guang- tao Zhai. 2024. Embodied Image Quality Assessment for Robotic Intelligence. arXiv:2412.18774 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18774

2024 arXiv
[2016]

The International Journal of Robotics Research (2016)

The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research (2016). doi:10.1177/0278364915620033 arXiv:http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/21/0278364915620033.full.pdf+html

2016 doi
[2021]

IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (TCSVT) 32, 4 (2021), 1903–1916

Learning generalized spatial-temporal deep feature representation for no-reference video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (TCSVT) 32, 4 (2021), 1903–1916

2021
[2025]

arXiv:2505.16815 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16815

Perceptual Quality Assessment for Embodied AI. arXiv:2505.16815 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16815

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [31]

Amir Rasouli, Iuliia Kotseruba, and John K Tsotsos. 2017. Are They Going to Cross? A Benchmark Dataset and Baseline for Pedestrian Crosswalk Behavior. In ICCVW. 206–213

work page 2017

[2] [48]

Haoning Wu, Erli Zhang, Liang Liao, Chaofeng Chen, Jingwen Hou, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. 2023. Exploring video quality assessment on user generated contents from aesthetic and technical perspectives. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 20144–20154

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Wentao Bao, Qi Yu, and Yu Kong. 2020. Uncertainty-based Traffic Accident Anticipation with Spatio-Temporal Relational Learning. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’20) . ACM, 2682–2690. doi:10.1145/3394171.3413827

arXiv 2020

[4] [2]

Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Jo- ern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achtelik, and Roland Siegwart

work page

[5] [3]

Nived Chebrolu, Philipp Lottes, Alexander Schaefer, Wera Winterhalter, Wol- fram Burgard, and Cyrill Stachniss. 2017. Agricultural robot dataset for plant classification, localization and mapping on sugar beet fields. The International Journal of Robotics Research (2017). doi:10.1177/0278364917720510

work page doi:10.1177/0278364917720510 2017

[6] [4]

Baoliang Chen, Lingyu Zhu, Guo Li, Fangbo Lu, Hongfei Fan, and Shiqi Wang

work page

[7] [5]

Younggun Cho. 2025. Awesome SLAM Datasets. https://github.com/ youngguncho/awesome-slam-datasets. Accessed: 2025-05-28

work page 2025

[8] [6]

Open X-Embodiment Collaboration, Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, Albert Tung, Alex Bewley, Alex Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Rai, Anchit Gupta, Andrew Wang, Andrey Kolobov, Anikait Singh, Animesh Garg, An...

arXiv 2023