Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Who is a Better Talker: Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Talking Heads

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 A single composite image made of a first frame, a vertical time slice through the mouth, and two lip-sync error maps can predict human quality ratings for AI-generated talking heads and beats 15 comparison methods on three datasets.

desk verdict Large AGTH quality dataset is the real contribution; FSCD is a solid metric but its Y-T slice alignment assumption is unverified and should be checked before the SOTA claim is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23343 v1 pith:SNGO7D47 submitted 2025-07-31 cs.CV eess.IV

Yingjie Zhou , Jiezhang Cao , Zicheng Zhang , Farong Wen , Yanwei Jiang , Jun Jia , Xiaohong Liu , Xiongkuo Min
show 1 more author
Guangtao Zhai
This is my paper
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords AI-generatedtalkingheadsheadqualityassessmentTHQA-10KdatasetY-Tslicelip-syncconsistencySyncNetSwinTransformermeanopinionscore
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 sets out to answer who generates better AI talking heads by building the largest dataset of such videos to date and an automatic way to score them. It claims that one composite image, formed by stacking a video's first frame, a vertical time slice through the mouth, and two lip-sync error maps, carries enough information to predict how human viewers will rate the video. If that claim holds, talker development can be guided by an objective score instead of slow subjective testing, and quality differences between speech-driven methods can be measured reliably. The paper supports the claim with state-of-the-art rank correlations of 0.8066, 0.7812, and 0.8235 on three talking-head quality datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FSCD composite image, assembled from four aligned inputs: the first frame, a Y-T slice, and two SyncNet consistency maps. The Y-T slice is a vertical column of pixels taken at the mouth's horizontal position and laid out over time, so mouth motion becomes a static texture that a spatial backbone can read. The mouth position is found by detecting landmarks in the T2I-generated still portrait and scaling that centroid by the video-to-image resolution ratio (Eq. 5), and SyncNet's LSE-C and LSE-D expand into two additional image channels instead of being regressed with fixed weights. Swin-T then extracts quality features from the composite and predicts the MOS directly.

What would settle it

Measure the true mouth position in the videos of THQA-10K and compare it with the scaled portrait centroid used to place each Y-T slice; if many slices miss the mouth while FSCD still achieves its reported 0.81 SRCC, the slice is not doing the claimed temporal work, whereas if re-centering slices on true mouth landmarks raises accuracy, the alignment assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is FSCD, an objective quality assessment method that treats an AI-generated talking head as a single composite image rather than as a sequence of frames. The composite stacks the first frame (spatial quality), a Y-T slice cut through the mouth column over time (temporal mouth motion), and the LSE-C and LSE-D outputs of SyncNet (tone-lip consistency), and feeds all four channels into a Swin-T regression network trained with mean squared error against human mean opinion scores. The paper reports that FSCD outperforms all fifteen compared image, video, and lip-sync quality metrics on the new THQA-10K dataset and on the earlier THQA and THQA-3D benchmarks, and its ablations show that each of the four input components contributes positively to performance.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that scaling the mouth center found in the still portrait by the video-to-image resolution ratio puts the vertical slice through the mouth in every generated video, even when a talker crops, warps, translates, or changes the aspect ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FSCD is right, talker design can be iterated against an automatic score instead of repeated human rating sessions, since the composite image predicts perceived quality at state-of-the-art accuracy.
  • Different talkers differ substantially in output quality, with EchoMimic and SadTalker rated highest and EmoGen and StyleHeat lowest, while choice of T2I model matters less, so talker selection can be based on the FSCD score.
  • The 10,457-video dataset records 17,191 distortions, with blur, noise, and artifacts most common but misaligned keypoints most damaging to perceived quality, giving talker developers a concrete list of failure modes to fix.
  • Even without the first frame, the Y-T slice plus lip-sync features still achieve competitive accuracy, so temporal mouth-motion information alone is sufficient for a useful quality signal.
  • FSCD generalizes across three datasets with different content and distortion mixes, suggesting the composite-image format transfers beyond the specific T2I models and talkers used to build THQA-10K.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension is that the same composite trick could compress any temporally structured generative video into a single image for quality prediction, which may benefit other domains such as lip-synced dubbing or expressive avatars without requiring video backbones.
  • Because the first frame is the most important component and many talkers keep identity static, FSCD may work best for near-static talking heads and could lose accuracy on methods with large head motion or camera motion, where a single vertical slice no longer tracks the mouth.
  • The paper's own distortion analysis shows misaligned keypoints have the largest perceptual impact, so a direct misalignment detector, trained on landmark displacement rather than on MOS, could complement FSCD and give talker developers an actionable fault signal.
  • A testable consequence not reported in the paper is that re-centering the Y-T slice on mouth landmarks detected directly in each generated video, rather than scaling the portrait centroid, could further improve accuracy for talkers that crop or translate the face.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents THQA-10K, a dataset of 10,457 AI-generated talking-head videos produced by 12 text-to-image models and 14 speech-driven talkers, with subjective MOS and distortion labels collected from 25 raters. The authors analyze how talker generalization and output quality vary, and propose FSCD, an objective quality regression model that concatenates the first video frame, a Y-T temporal slice, and SyncNet-derived LSE-C/LSE-D maps into a single image and regresses it to MOS with a Swin-T backbone. On THQA-10K, THQA, and THQA-3D, FSCD is reported to achieve SRCC of 0.8066, 0.7812, and 0.8235, outperforming 15 baselines, and ablations show each of the four components contributes.

Significance. The dataset is a substantial contribution: it is the largest AGTH quality assessment dataset to date, covers a wide range of modern generative models, and its subjective data enable analysis of talker generalization and distortion prevalence. The release of the dataset and code is a positive step for the community. FSCD's design is novel in treating the Y-T slice as an image-level temporal feature and in feeding SyncNet scores through the same backbone as the spatial frame. If the statistical and methodological concerns below are addressed, the paper would be a useful benchmark for AGTH quality assessment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5)] The Y-T slice position is computed by scaling the mouth centroid Co of the T2I portrait by the resolution ratio Rv/Ro (Eq. 5), which assumes that the talker output is a uniformly scaled version of the portrait with no translation, cropping, letterboxing, or aspect-ratio change. The talkers in Table 3 include methods that output 1024×1024 from 512×512 inputs (Wav2Lip, Video-Retalking, DINet, IP-LAP, TalkLip, MuseTalk) and StyleGAN-based methods (StyleHeat), for which such preprocessing is common. The paper never verifies that Cv falls inside the mouth region for each AGTH. Since Table 5 shows that removing the Y-T slice reduces THQA-10K SRCC from 0.8066 to 0.7330, the slice is a major contributor to the reported performance; an unverified alignment assumption is therefore load-bearing. Please validate the alignment, for example by running a landmark detector on AGTH frames and reporting the distance between Cv and the true mouth centroid per talker, and if misalignment is found, correct the slice placement or exclude misaligned cases.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 4] The SOTA claim is based on SRCC margins of +0.029 (THQA-10K), +0.021 (THQA), and +0.036 (THQA-3D) over the second-best methods, but only the averaged metrics over five folds are reported, without standard deviations or significance tests. The five-fold average can be sensitive to a single fold, and the margin is within typical cross-fold variability. Please report per-fold results with mean±std for all four metrics and run a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) between FSCD and the top baselines on each dataset. Without this, the claim that FSCD surpasses the next best algorithm by at least +2% SRCC is not statistically grounded.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4)-(5)] FSCD uses the T2I source portrait to compute the mouth centroid Co, and therefore requires access to the original portrait at test time. The 15 baselines in Table 4 are no-reference methods (with LSE-C/LSE-D using only the video and audio). This makes the comparison asymmetric: FSCD is effectively a reduced-reference method, since the source image provides information about the intended framing and identity. The paper should either (a) compute the mouth centroid from the AGTH video itself, for example by applying a face landmark detector to the first frame of the AGTH, which would make FSCD no-reference; or (b) explicitly frame FSCD as reduced-reference and compare with appropriate baselines. If option (a) is taken, the experiments and ablations need to be rerun.
  4. [Section 5.1, data partitioning] The paper states that the five-fold data partitioning ensures that there is no content overlap, but it does not specify the unit of partitioning. If splits are video-level random, the same portrait and audio can appear in both training and test sets (for different talkers), which would constitute content leakage because FSCD's first-frame and slice features are strongly tied to the portrait. Please specify whether the split is at the level of prompt (PID), portrait, or audio, and demonstrate that no content from one fold appears in another. If the current splits are video-level, please re-split at the portrait or prompt level and rerun the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The text says 'identify the key points pk of the mouth' but the variable description says 'K denotes the total number of key points on the face.' Please correct to 'on the mouth.'
  2. [Section 4.3, Fig. 8] The arrangement of the four FSCD input components (first frame, Y-T slice, LSE-C, LSE-D) is not specified; the paper should state whether they are tiled as a 2×2 grid, concatenated along the channel dimension, or arranged otherwise, and give the resizing and normalization steps.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The table lists 'Head Motion' but the paper does not explain how head-motion presence affects the Y-T slice extraction or quality; a sentence clarifying whether the slice is computed over the whole frame regardless of head motion would be helpful.
  4. [Section 5.2] The conclusions state that the next best algorithm is surpassed by at least +2% SRCC, but the second-best method differs per dataset; the text should name the second-best method per dataset for clarity.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'figuratively known as Talkers' is informal; consider rephrasing for a more formal tone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FSCD is a supervised regressor with held-out evaluation; self-citations supply benchmarks and distortion taxonomy but do not force the SOTA claim.

full rationale

FSCD's quality prediction is a learned function: Eq. (6) trains a Swin-T regressor with MSE loss against subject-rated MOS, and Sec. 5.1 states that all comparisons use five-fold cross-validation with no content overlap. No equation reduces an FSCD prediction to a fitted constant or to the T2I-portrait landmark input. Eq. (5), Cv = Rv/Ro * Co, is a heuristic alignment for the Y-T slice; it is a preprocessing assumption, not a derivation of quality scores, and the paper's own acknowledgment of output-resolution variability (Sec. 3.2) makes this a correctness risk rather than a circular step. The distortion labels collected in Sec. 3.6 do not enter FSCD's training or inference. The main self-citations are to the authors' prior THQA/THQA-3D datasets used as evaluation benchmarks and to [72] for the distortion taxonomy and Y-T-slice visualization; these are not load-bearing for the core claim because the method is validated by held-out tests and by the ablation study (Table 5). Thus the central SOTA claim has independent empirical content; only minor self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

FSCD is a supervised pipeline whose central result depends on trained network weights and three domain assumptions: first-frame representativeness, mouth-centroid alignment after scaling, and SyncNet validity on synthetic faces. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Swin-T backbone and regression head weights = learned from THQA-10K training folds
    FSCD is a supervised regressor; its quality predictions are the output of a trained network. This is disclosed and standard, but it means the SOTA claim is an empirical fitting result.
  • Distortion threshold T_j = N_j/2 = half the number of raters per video
    Eq. (3) uses majority voting to binarize distortion labels. The dataset's distortion statistics (17,191 distortions) depend on this threshold, although FSCD itself does not use distortion labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Video quality is approximately stationary over time for a stationary talker, so the first frame is representative of spatial quality.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to justify using the first frame. Transient artifacts such as mouth twitch could be missed by the first frame, though the Y-T slice partially compensates.
  • domain assumption The mouth centroid in the T2I portrait, after scaling by Rv/Ro, locates the mouth in every talker's output.
    Eq. (5) in Section 4.1. Talkers may crop, warp, or shift the face, which would misplace the Y-T slice.
  • domain assumption SyncNet's LSE-C and LSE-D are valid indicators of audio-lip consistency on AI-generated faces.
    Section 4.2 uses SyncNet without testing its calibration on synthetic faces; SyncNet is trained on real video.
  • ad hoc to paper Five-fold splits have no content overlap.
    Section 5.1 asserts no content overlap, but no verification or split code is provided. If the same source image or audio leaked across folds, performance could be inflated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who is a Better Talker: Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Talking Heads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNGO7D47

@misc{pith2026250723343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who is a Better Talker: Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Talking Heads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNGO7D47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23343}
}
read the original abstract

Speech-driven methods for portraits are figuratively known as "Talkers" because of their capability to synthesize speaking mouth shapes and facial movements. Especially with the rapid development of the Text-to-Image (T2I) models, AI-Generated Talking Heads (AGTHs) have gradually become an emerging digital human media. However, challenges persist regarding the quality of these talkers and AGTHs they generate, and comprehensive studies addressing these issues remain limited. To address this gap, this paper presents the largest AGTH quality assessment dataset THQA-10K to date, which selects 12 prominent T2I models and 14 advanced talkers to generate AGTHs for 14 prompts. After excluding instances where AGTH generation is unsuccessful, the THQA-10K dataset contains 10,457 AGTHs. Then, volunteers are recruited to subjectively rate the AGTHs and give the corresponding distortion categories. In our analysis for subjective experimental results, we evaluate the performance of talkers in terms of generalizability and quality, and also expose the distortions of existing AGTHs. Finally, an objective quality assessment method based on the first frame, Y-T slice and tone-lip consistency is proposed. Experimental results show that this method can achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance in AGTH quality assessment. The work is released at https://github.com/zyj-2000/Talker.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Manual approach to digital human head design versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Features of selected prompts and speeches. (a) Word cloud of selected prompts. (b) Word cloud of the speech text content. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visualization of the number of successful generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of MOSs. i-th subject. In particular, Dij is a ten-dimensional 0-1 dis￾tortion vector, with each dimension denoting a correspond￾ing distortion type. According to existing works [26, 53– 55, 59, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 74–76], sij is processed as z￾scores acco…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of distortions. The left side shows how often each distortion occurs, while the right side shows typical cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Statistical analysis of different distortions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The proposed framework for FSCD. The method mainly consists of four compartmentalized modules: the Y-T slice process, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://ideogram.ai/, 2024

    Ideagram 2.0. https://ideogram.ai/, 2024. 1, 4

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    kandinsky 2.1, 2023

    Shakhmatov Arseniy, Razzhigaev Anton, Nikolich Alek- sandr, Arkhipkin Vladimir, Pavlov Igor, Kuznetsov Andrey, and Dimitrov Denis. kandinsky 2.1, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science, 2(3):8, 2023. 1, 4

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures

    RECOMMENDATION ITU-R BT. Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures. International Telecommunication Union, 2002. 4, 5

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    A no-reference quality assessment metric for dynamic 3d digital human

    Shi Chen, Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, and Xiongkuo Min. A no-reference quality assessment metric for dynamic 3d digital human. Displays, 80:102540, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Echomimic: Lifelike audio-driven por- trait animations through editable landmark conditions

    Zhiyuan Chen, Jiajiong Cao, Zhiquan Chen, Yuming Li, and Chenguang Ma. Echomimic: Lifelike audio-driven por- trait animations through editable landmark conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08136, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Videoretalking: Audio-based lip synchronization for talking head video editing in the wild

    Kun Cheng, Xiaodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Menghan Xia, Fei Yin, Mingrui Zhu, Xuan Wang, Jue Wang, and Nannan Wang. Videoretalking: Audio-based lip synchronization for talking head video editing in the wild. In ACM Special In- terest Group on Computer Graphics Asia 2022 , pages 1–9,

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Out of time: auto- mated lip sync in the wild

    Joon Son Chung and Andrew Zisserman. Out of time: auto- mated lip sync in the wild. InAsian Conference on Computer Vision 2016 Workshops, pages 251–263, 2017. 3, 7, 8

    work page 2016

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M ¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Mach...

    2024

  2. [10]

    https://huggingface.co/black- forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024

    FLUX.1-dev. https://huggingface.co/black- forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024. 4

    2024

  3. [11]

    https :// github

    Fooocus. https :// github. com/ lllyasviel/ Fooocus, 2023. 1, 4

    2023

  4. [12]

    Real-time multimodal human–avatar interaction

    Yun Fu, Renxiang Li, Thomas S Huang, and Mike Danielsen. Real-time multimodal human–avatar interaction. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 18(4):467–477, 2008. 2

    2008

  5. [13]

    Efficient emotional adaptation for audio-driven talking-head generation

    Yuan Gan, Zongxin Yang, Xihang Yue, Lingyun Sun, and Yi Yang. Efficient emotional adaptation for audio-driven talking-head generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 22634– 22645, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  6. [14]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 3

    2017

  7. [15]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 3

    2019

  8. [16]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8110–8119, 2020. 3

    2020

  9. [17]

    Two-level approach for no-reference con- sumer video quality assessment

    Jari Korhonen. Two-level approach for no-reference con- sumer video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Im- age Processing, 28(12):5923–5938, 2019. 8

    2019

  10. [18]

    Blindly assess quality of in-the-wild videos via quality-aware pre-training and motion perception

    Bowen Li, Weixia Zhang, Meng Tian, Guangtao Zhai, and Xianpei Wang. Blindly assess quality of in-the-wild videos via quality-aware pre-training and motion perception. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(9):5944–5958, 2022. 8

    2022

  11. [19]

    Aigiqa-20k: A large database for ai-generated image quality assessment

    Chunyi Li, Tengchuan Kou, Yixuan Gao, Yuqin Cao, Wei Sun, Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Zhichao Zhang, Weixia Zhang, Haoning Wu, et al. Aigiqa-20k: A large database for ai-generated image quality assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03407, 2(3):5, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quality as- sessment of in-the-wild videos

    Dingquan Li, Tingting Jiang, and Ming Jiang. Quality as- sessment of in-the-wild videos. In ACM International Con- ference on Multimedia, pages 2351–2359, 2019. 8

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ntire 2025 xgc quality assessment chal- lenge: Methods and results

    Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Qiang Hu, Xiaoyun Zhang, Jie Guo, Guangtao Zhai, Shushi Wang, Yingjie Zhou, Lu Liu, Jingxin Li, et al. Ntire 2025 xgc quality assessment chal- lenge: Methods and results. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pag...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 10012–10022, 2021. 7

    2021

  15. [23]

    Dreamtalk: When expressive talking head generation meets diffusion probabilistic models

    Yifeng Ma, Shiwei Zhang, Jiayu Wang, Xiang Wang, Yingya Zhang, and Zhidong Deng. Dreamtalk: When expressive talking head generation meets diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09767, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Realistic modeling and animation of human body based on scanned data

    Yong-You Ma, Hui Zhang, and Shou-Wei Jiang. Realistic modeling and animation of human body based on scanned data. Journal of Computer Science and Technology , 19(4): 529–537, 2004. 2

    2004

  17. [25]

    https : / / www

    Midjourney. https : / / www . midjourney . com / home, 2023. 1, 4

    2023

  18. [26]

    Perceptual video quality assessment: A sur- vey

    Xiongkuo Min, Huiyu Duan, Wei Sun, Yucheng Zhu, and Guangtao Zhai. Perceptual video quality assessment: A sur- vey. Science China Information Sciences , 67(11):211301,

  19. [27]

    No-reference image quality assessment in the spa- tial domain

    Anish Mittal, Anush Krishna Moorthy, and Alan Conrad Bovik. No-reference image quality assessment in the spa- tial domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 21 (12):4695–4708, 2012. 8

    2012

  20. [28]

    completely blind

    Anish Mittal, Rajiv Soundararajan, and Alan C Bovik. Mak- ing a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Sig- nal Processing Letters, 20(3):209–212, 2012. 8

    2012

  21. [29]

    A com- pletely blind video integrity oracle

    Anish Mittal, Michele A Saad, and Alan C Bovik. A com- pletely blind video integrity oracle. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 25(1):289–300, 2015. 8

    2015

  22. [30]

    A no-reference im- age blur metric based on the cumulative probability of blur detection (cpbd)

    Niranjan D Narvekar and Lina J Karam. A no-reference im- age blur metric based on the cumulative probability of blur detection (cpbd). IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 20(9):2678–2683, 2011. 3, 8

    2011

  23. [31]

    https : / / huggingface

    OpenDalleV1.1. https : / / huggingface . co / dataautogpt3/OpenDalleV1.1, 2023. 1, 4

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1, 4

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A lip sync expert is all you need for speech to lip generation in the wild

    KR Prajwal, Rudrabha Mukhopadhyay, Vinay P Nambood- iri, and CV Jawahar. A lip sync expert is all you need for speech to lip generation in the wild. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 484–492, 2020. 1, 2, 4

    2020

  26. [34]

    https : / / huggingface

    ProteusV0.2. https : / / huggingface . co / dataautogpt3/ProteusV0.2, 2024. 1, 4

    2024

  27. [35]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 4

    2022

  28. [36]

    Blind prediction of natural video quality

    Michele A Saad, Alan C Bovik, and Christophe Charrier. Blind prediction of natural video quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 23(3):1352–1365, 2014. 8

    2014

  29. [37]

    Real-time vision and speech driven avatars for mul- timedia applications

    Oliver Schreer, Roman Englert, Peter Eisert, and Ralf Tanger. Real-time vision and speech driven avatars for mul- timedia applications. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10 (3):352–360, 2008. 2

    2008

  30. [38]

    An xt slice based method for action recognition

    Yanhu Shan, Shiquan Wang, Zhang Zhang, and Kaiqi Huang. An xt slice based method for action recognition. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pages 1897–1903, 2011. 2

    2011

  31. [39]

    A deep learning based no-reference quality assessment model for ugc videos

    Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Wei Lu, and Guangtao Zhai. A deep learning based no-reference quality assessment model for ugc videos. In ACM International Conference on Multi- media, 2022. 8

    2022

  32. [40]

    Ugc-vqa: Benchmarking blind video quality assessment for user generated content

    Zhengzhong Tu, Yilin Wang, Neil Birkbeck, Balu Adsumilli, and Alan C Bovik. Ugc-vqa: Benchmarking blind video quality assessment for user generated content. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 30:4449–4464, 2021. 8

    2021

  33. [41]

    Rapique: Rapid and accurate video quality prediction of user generated content

    Zhengzhong Tu, Xiangxu Yu, Yilin Wang, Neil Birkbeck, Balu Adsumilli, and Alan C Bovik. Rapique: Rapid and accurate video quality prediction of user generated content. IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, 2:425–440, 2021. 8

    2021

  34. [42]

    Seeing what you said: Talking face gen- eration guided by a lip reading expert

    Jiadong Wang, Xinyuan Qian, Malu Zhang, Robby T Tan, and Haizhou Li. Seeing what you said: Talking face gen- eration guided by a lip reading expert. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14653–14662, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023

  35. [43]

    Audio2head: Audio-driven one-shot talking- head generation with natural head motion

    Suzhen Wang, Lincheng Li, Yu Ding, Changjie Fan, and Xin Yu. Audio2head: Audio-driven one-shot talking- head generation with natural head motion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09293, 2021. 1, 2, 4

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 13(4): 600–612, 2004. 3

    2004

  37. [45]

    Fast- vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with frag- ment sampling

    Haoning Wu, Chaofeng Chen, Jingwen Hou, Liang Liao, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. Fast- vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with frag- ment sampling. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 538–554. Springer, 2022. 8

    2022

  38. [46]

    Emogen: Emotional image content generation with text-to-image dif- fusion models

    Jingyuan Yang, Jiawei Feng, and Hui Huang. Emogen: Emotional image content generation with text-to-image dif- fusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6358– 6368, 2024. 1, 2, 4

    2024

  39. [47]

    Styleheat: One-shot high-resolution editable talking face generation via pre-trained stylegan

    Fei Yin, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Mingdeng Cao, Yanbo Fan, Xuan Wang, Qingyan Bai, Baoyuan Wu, Jue Wang, and Yujiu Yang. Styleheat: One-shot high-resolution editable talking face generation via pre-trained stylegan. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 85–101, 2022...

    2022

  40. [48]

    A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(8):2579–2591, 2015

    Lin Zhang, Lei Zhang, and Alan C Bovik. A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(8):2579–2591, 2015. 8

    2015

  41. [49]

    Sadtalker: Learning realistic 3d motion coefficients for stylized audio- driven single image talking face animation

    Wenxuan Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Xuan Wang, Yong Zhang, Xi Shen, Yu Guo, Ying Shan, and Fei Wang. Sadtalker: Learning realistic 3d motion coefficients for stylized audio- driven single image talking face animation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Musetalk: Real-time high quality lip syn- chronization with latent space inpainting

    Yue Zhang, Minhao Liu, Zhaokang Chen, Bin Wu, Yubin Zeng, Chao Zhan, Yingjie He, Junxin Huang, and Wen- jiang Zhou. Musetalk: Real-time high quality lip syn- chronization with latent space inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10122, 2024. 2, 4

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dinet: Deformation inpainting network for realistic face visually dubbing on high resolution video

    Zhimeng Zhang, Zhipeng Hu, Wenjin Deng, Changjie Fan, Tangjie Lv, and Yu Ding. Dinet: Deformation inpainting network for realistic face visually dubbing on high resolution video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03988, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Eep-3dqa: Effi- cient and effective projection-based 3d model quality assess- ment

    Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Lu, Yucheng Zhu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Eep-3dqa: Effi- cient and effective projection-based 3d model quality assess- ment. In 2023 IEEE international conference on Multimedia and expo (ICME), pages 2483–2488. IEEE, 2023. 7

    2023

  45. [53]

    Advancing zero-shot digital human quality assessment through text-prompted evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02808, 2023

    Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Yingjie Zhou, Haoning Wu, Chunyi Li, Xiongkuo Min, Xiaohong Liu, Guangtao Zhai, and Weisi Lin. Advancing zero-shot digital human quality assessment through text-prompted evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02808, 2023. 2, 5

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ddh-qa: A dynamic digital humans quality assessment database

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, Wei Lu, Xiongkuo Min, Yu Wang, and Guangtao Zhai. Ddh-qa: A dynamic digital humans quality assessment database. In IEEE Inter- national Conference on Multimedia and Expo , pages 2519– 2524, 2023. 2

    2023

  47. [55]

    Perceptual quality assess- ment for digital human heads

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Yuzhe Wu, and Guangtao Zhai. Perceptual quality assess- ment for digital human heads. In IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , pages 1–5, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  48. [56]

    Geometry-aware video quality assessment for dynamic digital human

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Geometry-aware video quality assessment for dynamic digital human. In IEEE International Confer- ence on Image Processing, pages 1365–1369, 2023. 2

    2023

  49. [57]

    Simple baselines for projection-based full- reference and no-reference point cloud quality assessment

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Simple baselines for projection-based full- reference and no-reference point cloud quality assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17147, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A-bench: Are lmms masters at evaluat- ing ai-generated images? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03070,

    Zicheng Zhang, Haoning Wu, Chunyi Li, Yingjie Zhou, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Zijian Chen, Xiaohong Liu, Weisi Lin, and Guangtao Zhai. A-bench: Are lmms masters at evaluat- ing ai-generated images? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03070,

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Quality assessment in the era of large models: A survey

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Chunyi Li, Baixuan Zhao, Xi- aohong Liu, and Guangtao Zhai. Quality assessment in the era of large models: A survey. ACM Transactions on Multi- media Computing, Communications and Applications, 2024. 5

    2024

  52. [60]

    Quality-of-experience evaluation for digital twins in 6g net- work environments

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Long Teng, Wei Sun, Chunyi Li, Xiongkuo Min, Xiao-Ping Zhang, and Guangtao Zhai. Quality-of-experience evaluation for digital twins in 6g net- work environments. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting ,

  53. [61]

    Aibench: Towards trustworthy evaluation under the 45° law

    Zicheng Zhang, Junying Wang, Yijin Guo, Farong Wen, Zijian Chen, Hanqing Wang, Wenzhe Li, Lu Sun, Yingjie Zhou, Jianbo Zhang, Bowen Yan, Ziheng Jia, Jiahao Xiao, Yuan Tian, Xiangyang Zhu, Kaiwei Zhang, Chunyi Li, Xi- aohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Qi Jia, and Guangtao Zhai. Aibench...

    2025

  54. [62]

    Mm- pcqa+: Advancing multi-modal learning for point cloud quality assessment

    Zicheng Zhang, Yingjie Zhou, Chunyi Li, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Xiaohong Liu, and Guangtao Zhai. Mm- pcqa+: Advancing multi-modal learning for point cloud quality assessment. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 21(4):1–22,

  55. [63]

    Identity- preserving talking face generation with landmark and ap- pearance priors

    Weizhi Zhong, Chaowei Fang, Yinqi Cai, Pengxu Wei, Gangming Zhao, Liang Lin, and Guanbin Li. Identity- preserving talking face generation with landmark and ap- pearance priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9729–...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Makelttalk: speaker-aware talking-head animation

    Yang Zhou, Xintong Han, Eli Shechtman, Jose Echevar- ria, Evangelos Kalogerakis, and Dingzeyu Li. Makelttalk: speaker-aware talking-head animation. ACM Transactions On Graphics, 39(6):1–15, 2020. 1, 4

    2020

  57. [65]

    Omnidirectional image quality assessment by distortion dis- crimination assisted multi-stream network

    Yu Zhou, Yanjing Sun, Leida Li, Ke Gu, and Yuming Fang. Omnidirectional image quality assessment by distortion dis- crimination assisted multi-stream network. IEEE Transac- tions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 32(4): 1767–1777, 2021. 5

    2021

  58. [66]

    Pyramid feature aggregation for hierarchi- cal quality prediction of stitched panoramic images

    Yu Zhou, Weikang Gong, Yanjing Sun, Leida Li, Jinjian Wu, and Xinbo Gao. Pyramid feature aggregation for hierarchi- cal quality prediction of stitched panoramic images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 25:4177–4186, 2022. 5

    2022

  59. [67]

    An implementation of multimodal fusion sys- tem for intelligent digital human generation

    Yingjie Zhou, Yaodong Chen, Kaiyue Bi, Lian Xiong, and Hui Liu. An implementation of multimodal fusion sys- tem for intelligent digital human generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20251, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Quality assessment for stitched panoramic images via patch registration and bidimensional feature ag- gregation

    Yu Zhou, Weikang Gong, Yanjing Sun, Leida Li, Ke Gu, and Jinjian Wu. Quality assessment for stitched panoramic images via patch registration and bidimensional feature ag- gregation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2023. 5

    2023

  61. [69]

    A no-reference quality as- sessment method for digital human head

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Xi- anghe Ma, and Guangtao Zhai. A no-reference quality as- sessment method for digital human head. In IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Image Processing, pages 36–40, 2023. 2

    2023

  62. [70]

    Perceptual quality assessment for point clouds: A survey

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Perceptual quality assessment for point clouds: A survey. ZTE Communications, 21(4):3, 2023. 5

    2023

  63. [71]

    Memo-bench: A multiple benchmark for text-to-image and multimodal large language models on hu- man emotion analysis

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Jiezhang Cao, Jun Jia, Yan- wei Jiang, Farong Wen, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Memo-bench: A multiple benchmark for text-to-image and multimodal large language models on hu- man emotion analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11235 ,

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Thqa: A perceptual quality assessment database for talking heads

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Zhihua Wang, Xiao-Ping Zhang, and Guang- tao Zhai. Thqa: A perceptual quality assessment database for talking heads. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, pages 15–21, 2024. 2, 3, 5, 7

    2024

  65. [73]

    Subjective and objective quality-of-experience assessment for 3d talking heads

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Subjective and objective quality-of-experience assessment for 3d talking heads. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 6033– 6042, 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  66. [74]

    3dgcqa: A quality assessment database for 3d ai-generated contents

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Farong Wen, Jun Jia, Yanwei Jiang, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. 3dgcqa: A quality assessment database for 3d ai-generated contents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07236, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Reli-qa: A multidimensional quality assessment dataset for relighted human heads

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Farong Wen, Jun Jia, Xiongkuo Min, Jia Wang, and Guangtao Zhai. Reli-qa: A multidimensional quality assessment dataset for relighted human heads. In IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing, 2024. 2

    2024

  68. [76]

    Q-agent: Quality-driven chain-of-thought image restoration agent through robust multimodal large lan- guage model

    Yingjie Zhou, Jiezhang Cao, Zicheng Zhang, Farong Wen, Yanwei Jiang, Jun Jia, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Q-agent: Quality-driven chain-of-thought image restoration agent through robust multimodal large lan- guage model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07148, 2025. 5

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Cdhqa: A quality assessment database for conversa- tional digital human

    Yingjie Zhou, Jing Wan, Sitong Liu, Yinghan Xia, Zhixi- ang Lu, Farong Wen, Zicheng Zhang, Yu Wang, Yu Zhou, Xiaohong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, Jiezhang Cao, and Guangtao Zhai. Cdhqa: A quality assessment database for conversa- tional digital human. In International Conference on Ima...

    2025

  70. [78]

    Who is a bet- ter imitator: Subjective and objective quality assessment of animated humans

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Jun Jia, Yanwei Jiang, Xiao- hong Liu, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Who is a bet- ter imitator: Subjective and objective quality assessment of animated humans. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Sys- tems for Video Technology, 2025. 2

    2025

  71. [79]

    Ct-pcqa: A convolutional neural network and transformer combined method for point cloud quality as- sessment

    Yingjie Zhou, Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. Ct-pcqa: A convolutional neural network and transformer combined method for point cloud quality as- sessment. Signal Processing: Image Communication , page 117371, 2025. 7

    2025

Pith tools

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