Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Multilevel Semantic-Aware Model for AI-Generated Video Quality Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MSA-VQA sets a new state of the art for AI-generated video quality assessment, reaching 0.810 SRCC on the T2VQA-DB benchmark by checking generated videos against their text prompts and tracking semantic glitches between frames.

desk verdict Plausible architecture and ablations, but the SOTA claim could be inflated by prompt leakage in the train/validation split; worth reviewing with the split question as the key test. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02706 v1 pith:2YGBVAQG submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CV

Jiaze Li , Haoran Xu , Shiding Zhu , Junwei He , Haozhao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords AI-generatedvideoqualityassessmentno-referenceCLIPsemanticsupervisionprompt-videoalignmentmutationcross-attentionmultilevelfeaturefusionT2VQA-DB
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 MSA-VQA, a no-reference model that predicts the perceptual quality of AI-generated videos. It argues that quality depends not only on visual distortion but on semantic alignment between the video and the text prompt that generated it, as well as on sudden semantic changes between frames. On the T2VQA-DB dataset, the model reports a Spearman rank correlation of 0.810 and a Pearson correlation of 0.825, beating the previous best method T2VQA (0.796 and 0.806). The authors' key claim is that adding prompt-semantic supervision and a frame-to-frame semantic mutation detector to a multilevel video-quality architecture yields the best current no-reference quality predictor on this benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-part CLIP-based semantic supervision scheme layered onto a multilevel video-quality network. The Prompt Semantic Supervision module adds lightweight adapters to the final two layers of CLIP's text encoder, mapping the class token of the conditional prompt into a quality-aware feature that is injected into each branch. The Semantic Mutation-aware module extracts CLS tokens from CLIP's image encoder on each frame and applies cross-attention between a learnable query and the sequence of frame features, compressing the frame set into a fixed-size representation of semantic change. These modules work with a three-branch ensemble — a Video Swin Transformer for the video level, a Swin Transformer pretrained on LSVQ for the segment level, and a ConvNext-tiny for the frame level — each trained with a different loss and fused through a learned weighted sum.

What would settle it

Build a test set in which video quality is held roughly constant but prompt-video alignment is deliberately varied, or vice versa, and check whether MSA-VQA's PSS-based predictions follow human scores; if the rank correlation over that set is not significantly positive, the monotonicity assumption that PSS rests on fails, and the reported performance gain would not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MSA-VQA establishes that AI-generated video quality can be predicted more accurately when the model is explicitly supervised with two semantic signals: the consistency between the generated video and its conditional text prompt, and the presence of semantic mutations between consecutive frames. The model processes video at three granularities — frame, segment, and full video — each with a separate backbone and loss, and combines the three predictions with a weighted ensemble. A Prompt Semantic Supervision module adapts CLIP's text encoder to produce a quality-aware prompt feature, while a Semantic Mutation-aware module uses CLIP's image encoder with cross-attention to capture frame-to-frame semantic drift. Systematic ablations show that both modules contribute gains: removing PSS drops the average score from 0.796 to 0.740, and adding SMA raises PLCC from 0.808 to 0.825.

Load-bearing premise

The core load-bearing premise is that the semantic difference between a generated video and its text prompt, as measured by CLIP with trained adapters, tracks human quality judgments monotonically, so that a larger measured difference implies lower perceived quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold on other AI-generated video datasets, no-reference quality assessment for text-to-video models can be substantially improved by supervising on prompt alignment rather than only on low-level distortion.
  • The observed monotonic relation — larger semantic difference between prompt and video means lower quality — would give video generation practitioners a cheap, model-based way to filter badly aligned outputs at inference time.
  • The SMA module's success suggests that sudden semantic mutations, a common failure in diffusion-generated video, are a learnable signal that generalizes beyond the specific generators in T2VQA-DB.
  • The multilevel ensemble, where each granularity is trained independently with a tailored loss, provides a template for adapting existing UGC video quality models to the AI-generated domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: swap the CLIP image encoder for a video-text alignment model to see whether temporal semantic drift is captured better, which would isolate the contribution of cross-frame attention from per-frame CLIP features.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the PSS module's quality-aware prompt feature could be reused as an auxiliary reward signal for guiding text-to-video generation itself, not just for assessment.
  • Since the ablation evidence for the monotonicity assumption comes from a single dataset, an external check on a held-out set of prompts with intentionally degraded semantic fidelity would be needed to confirm the assumption is not overfitted to T2VQA-DB's generator distribution.
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. The paper proposes MSA-VQA, a no-reference quality assessment model specifically for AI-generated videos. It comprises three branches operating at frame, segment, and video levels, each trained with a dedicated loss and combined by a weighted ensemble. Two semantic modules are introduced: a Prompt Semantic Supervision (PSS) module that uses CLIP text encoder adapters to compare video content with the conditional text prompt, and a Semantic Mutation-aware (SMA) module that uses CLIP image features and cross-attention to detect semantic inconsistencies across frames. Experiments on the T2VQA-DB dataset report SRCC 0.810, PLCC 0.825, and average score 0.818, which the authors state is state-of-the-art, surpassing the previous best method T2VQA (SRCC 0.796, PLCC 0.806). Ablations on ensemble strategy and on the two semantic modules are presented in Tables III and IV.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that explicit semantic supervision from the conditioning prompt can improve AI-generated video quality assessment, and its multilevel ensemble architecture is a reasonable and potentially generalizable design. The reported margin over T2VQA on T2VQA-DB is notable, and the ablation results suggest that both the prompt supervision and the mutation-aware module contribute to the final performance. The main value of the paper is empirical; the claim is falsifiable and the experimental protocol is, in principle, reproducible. However, the significance is currently contingent on the soundness of the train/validation split and on the interpretation of the ablation gains, because the entire result rests on a single dataset and a single split.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-A and II-B]
  2. [Table II and Section III-A] The empirical claim rests on a single random 9:1 split with no error bars, no bootstrap confidence intervals, and no significance tests. The reported gain over T2VQA is SRCC +0.014 and PLCC +0.019, which may be within the noise of the evaluation protocol. Please report results over multiple random splits (ideally with prompt-disjoint partitioning), including standard deviations, or provide a statistical test. This is necessary to support the statement that MSA-VQA 'significantly' outperforms existing methods.
  3. [Section II-A and II-D] The mechanism for propagating video-level quality labels to frame and segment levels is underspecified. Section II-A says that video-level scores are 'distributed across frames' and 'redistributed' (Figure 1), but no formula, temporal weighting scheme, or description of how segment-level labels are derived is given. Since the frame and segment branches are trained with their own losses in Section II-D, the exact target construction is essential for reproducibility and for interpreting the ablation results in Table III. Please specify this redistribution procedure precisely.
  4. [Section II-B and Table IV] The paper asserts in Section II-B that 'the greater the semantic difference between a video's content and the conditional prompt used for its generation, the lower its quality score,' but this monotonicity assumption is not directly validated. The only evidence offered is the indirect ablation gain in Table IV on a single dataset, which is also subject to the prompt-leakage concern above. If CLIP text-image alignment does not track human quality judgments for AI-generated distortions, the PSS module could add noise or bias rather than semantic understanding. Please provide direct evidence, such as a correlation analysis between CLIP semantic difference and human quality scores on a held-out set, or a failure-case analysis showing that PSS helps when semantic mismatch is present.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 and Sections II-B, II-C] There is an inconsistency in the figure panel references: Section II-B says PSS is 'depicted in Figure 1(c)' and Section II-C says SMA is 'shown in Figure 1(b)', but the caption lists the PSS module as (b) and the SMA module as (c). Please correct the cross-references.
  2. [Equations (1)-(2)] The notation in Equations (1) and (2) is unclear: Pc1 is the output of adapter g1 applied to the CLS token, then Equation (2) feeds [Pc1, F] into the encoder. Please clarify whether Pc1 is concatenated with the original token sequence, what dimension Pc1 has, and why the projection is applied before the final encoder layer rather than after it.
  3. [Section III-A] The phrase '10,000 generated videos on 27 subjects' is ambiguous. It should be clarified whether 'subjects' refers to the text prompts, the underlying scene categories, or some other grouping, since this directly affects the interpretation of the random split and the prompt-leakage risk.
  4. [Section III-A] T2VQA-DB is cited via both [18] and [19]; please disambiguate which reference corresponds to the dataset description and which to the T2VQA metric method, and ensure the citation list matches the text.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'contional' in Section II-B, 'Addtionally' in Section III-C, and inconsistent use of 'Swin Transfomer' in Figure 1. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOTA claim rests on supervised benchmark fitting with external CLIP features; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation appears in the related-work survey.

full rationale

MSA-VQA is an empirical supervised model, not a derivation from first principles. The PSS and SMA modules are trained end-to-end on the T2VQA-DB ground-truth quality labels, and the reported SRCC/PLCC values are evaluations on a held-out validation split of that same benchmark. No predicted quantity is constructed to equal a fitted input by definition: the CLIP text and image encoders are externally pretrained, and the adapters and ensemble weights are ordinary learned parameters. The 'observation' in Section II-B that larger semantic difference implies lower quality is an empirical prior, not a theorem whose conclusion is built into the architecture; even if it is questionable, that is a correctness risk rather than circularity. The only self-citation appears in the background sentence 'NR-VQA has gained prominence... [2]–[5]' (reference [5] includes authors Haoran Xu and Jiaze Li), and it is not load-bearing. The potential concern that the random 9:1 split may leak prompt identity into validation is a legitimate experimental-design risk, but it does not make any output equal to an input by construction, so it does not constitute circularity under the specified criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; the modules are compositions of learned components based on CLIP and standard transformers. The main extra assumptions are about label propagation and the validity of CLIP features for AIGC quality assessment.

free parameters (3)
  • Ensemble weights w1, w2, w3 = not reported
    Equation (9) combines branch predictions using weights optimized on the validation set; their values are not disclosed, so the final result depends on fitted choices.
  • Learnable query Q in SMA = learned
    Used as the query in cross-attention (Eq. 3) to compress frame features; its dimension, initialization, and training details are not specified.
  • Adapter parameters g1 and g2 in CLIP encoders = learned
    Adapters are inserted after the last two layers of CLIP text and image encoders and trained to map features into a quality-aware space; their architecture is not described.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth quality scores in T2VQA-DB can be validly propagated from video level to frame and segment levels.
    Section II-A assigns video-level scores to frames and segments for training, but provides no justification that the video-level MOS is an appropriate label at finer granularities.
  • domain assumption CLIP-based semantic features, after adaptation, are predictive of AI-generated video quality, including prompt-video consistency and frame-to-frame semantic mutations.
    Section II-B states that larger semantic differences between video and prompt imply lower quality, and Section II-C assumes cross-attention on CLIP frame features captures quality-relevant mutations. This is a modeling assumption tested only through ablations on one dataset.
  • domain assumption The single random 9:1 split of T2VQA-DB is unbiased and representative.
    Section III-A describes the split but does not report subject-wise separation or cross-validation. If videos from the same prompt or generator appear in both train and test, the reported numbers may be optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multilevel Semantic-Aware Model for AI-Generated Video Quality Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YGBVAQG

@misc{pith2026250102706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multilevel Semantic-Aware Model for AI-Generated Video Quality Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YGBVAQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02706}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid development of diffusion models has greatly advanced AI-generated videos in terms of length and consistency recently, yet assessing AI-generated videos still remains challenging. Previous approaches have often focused on User-Generated Content(UGC), but few have targeted AI-Generated Video Quality Assessment methods. In this work, we introduce MSA-VQA, a Multilevel Semantic-Aware Model for AI-Generated Video Quality Assessment, which leverages CLIP-based semantic supervision and cross-attention mechanisms. Our hierarchical framework analyzes video content at three levels: frame, segment, and video. We propose a Prompt Semantic Supervision Module using text encoder of CLIP to ensure semantic consistency between videos and conditional prompts. Additionally, we propose the Semantic Mutation-aware Module to capture subtle variations between frames. Extensive experiments demonstrate our method achieves state-of-the-art results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02706 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the MSA-VQA framework. The framework includes three main components capturing features at the video, segment, and frame levels, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The four images above are from a video generated with the prompt: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Image quality assessment in the modern age,

    K. Ma and Y . Fang, “Image quality assessment in the modern age,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2021, pp. 5664–5666

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of audio-visual signals,

    X. Min, G. Zhai, J. Zhou, M. C. Farias, and A. C. Bovik, “Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of audio-visual signals,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 6054–6068, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A completely blind video integrity oracle,

    A. Mittal, M. A. Saad, and A. C. Bovik, “A completely blind video integrity oracle,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 289–300, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Blind prediction of natural video quality,

    M. A. Saad, A. C. Bovik, and C. Charrier, “Blind prediction of natural video quality,” IEEE Transactions on image Processing , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1352–1365, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Shortform ugc video quality assessment based on multi-level video fusion with rank-aware,

    H. Xu, J. Zhou, M. Yang, and J. Li, “Shortform ugc video quality assessment based on multi-level video fusion with rank-aware,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, vol. 7, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Spatiotemporal statistics for video quality assessment,

    X. Li, Q. Guo, and X. Lu, “Spatiotemporal statistics for video quality assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 3329–3342, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    An optical flow-based no-reference video quality assessment algorithm,

    K. Manasa and S. S. Channappayya, “An optical flow-based no-reference video quality assessment algorithm,” in 2016 IEEE International Con- ference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 2400–2404

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1137–1149, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Video swin transformer,

    Z. Liu, J. Ning, Y . Cao, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and H. Hu, “Video swin transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 3202–3211

    2022

  3. [11]

    No-reference video quality assessment via feature learning,

    J. Xu, P. Ye, Y . Liu, and D. Doermann, “No-reference video quality assessment via feature learning,” in 2014 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 491–495

    2014

  4. [12]

    Deep blind video quality assessment based on temporal human perception,

    S. Ahn and S. Lee, “Deep blind video quality assessment based on temporal human perception,” in2018 25th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 619–623

    2018

  5. [13]

    Rirnet: Recurrent-in-recurrent network for video quality assessment,

    P. Chen, L. Li, L. Ma, J. Wu, and G. Shi, “Rirnet: Recurrent-in-recurrent network for video quality assessment,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia , 2020, pp. 834–842

    2020

  6. [14]

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

    W. Sun, X. Min, W. Lu, and G. Zhai, “A deep learning based no- reference quality assessment model for ugc videos,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2022, pp. 856– 865

    2022

  7. [15]

    Zoom-vqa: Patches, frames and clips integration for video quality assessment,

    K. Zhao, K. Yuan, M. Sun, and X. Wen, “Zoom-vqa: Patches, frames and clips integration for video quality assessment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 1302–1310

    2023

  8. [16]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  9. [17]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,”

  10. [18]

    Ntire 2024 quality assessment of ai-generated content challenge,

    X. Liu, X. Min, and G. e. a. Zhai, “Ntire 2024 quality assessment of ai-generated content challenge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, June 2024, pp. 6337–6362

    2024

  11. [19]

    Subjective-aligned dataset and metric for text-to-video quality assessment,

    T. Kou, X. Liu, Z. Zhang, C. Li, H. Wu, X. Min, G. Zhai, and N. Liu, “Subjective-aligned dataset and metric for text-to-video quality assessment,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11956

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Text2video-zero: Text-to-image dif- fusion models are zero-shot video generators,

    L. Khachatryan, A. Movsisyan, V . Tadevosyan, R. Henschel, Z. Wang, S. Navasardyan, and H. Shi, “Text2video-zero: Text-to-image dif- fusion models are zero-shot video generators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13439, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text- to-image diffusion models without specific tuning,

    Y . Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Z. Liang, Y . Wang, Y . Qiao, M. Agrawala, D. Lin, and B. Dai, “Animatediff: Animate your personalized text- to-image diffusion models without specific tuning,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04725

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Videofusion: Decomposed diffusion models for high-quality video generation,

    Z. Luo, D. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Huang, L. Wang, Y . Shen, D. Zhao, J. Zhou, and T. Tan, “Videofusion: Decomposed diffusion models for high-quality video generation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08320

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Modelscope text-to-video technical report,

    J. Wang, H. Yuan, D. Chen, Y . Zhang, X. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Modelscope text-to-video technical report,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06571

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation,

    Y . He, T. Yang, Y . Zhang, Y . Shan, and Q. Chen, “Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation,” 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Show-1: Marrying pixel and latent diffusion models for text-to-video generation,

    D. J. Zhang, J. Z. Wu, J.-W. Liu, R. Zhao, L. Ran, Y . Gu, D. Gao, and M. Z. Shou, “Show-1: Marrying pixel and latent diffusion models for text-to-video generation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15818

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Large-scale study of perceptual video quality,

    Z. Sinno and A. C. Bovik, “Large-scale study of perceptual video quality,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 28, no. 2, p. 612–627, Feb. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIP. 2018.2869673

    2019

  19. [27]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi, “Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,”

  20. [28]

    Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to- image generation,

    J. Xu, X. Liu, Y . Wu, Y . Tong, Q. Li, M. Ding, J. Tang, and Y . Dong, “Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to- image generation,” 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation,

    Y . Wang, Y . He, Y . Li, K. Li, J. Yu, X. Ma, X. Li, G. Chen, X. Chen, Y . Wang, C. He, P. Luo, Z. Liu, Y . Wang, L. Wang, and Y . Qiao, “Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fetv: A benchmark for fine-grained evaluation of open-domain text-to-video generation,

    Y . Liu, L. Li, S. Ren, R. Gao, S. Li, S. Chen, X. Sun, and L. Hou, “Fetv: A benchmark for fine-grained evaluation of open-domain text-to-video generation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01813

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  24. [32]

    Making a “completely blind

    A. Mittal, R. Soundararajan, and A. C. Bovik, “Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 209–212, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Faver: Blind quality prediction of variable frame rate videos,

    Q. Zheng, Z. Tu, P. C. Madhusudana, X. Zeng, A. C. Bovik, and Y . Fan, “Faver: Blind quality prediction of variable frame rate videos,” Signal Processing: Image Communication , vol. 122, p. 117101, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images,

    J. Wang, K. C. Chan, and C. C. Loy, “Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images,” in AAAI, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

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

    B. Li, W. Zhang, M. Tian, G. Zhai, and X. 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, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 5944–5958, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Fast-vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with fragment sampling,

    H. Wu, C. Chen, J. Hou, L. Liao, A. Wang, W. Sun, Q. Yan, and W. Lin, “Fast-vqa: Efficient end-to-end video quality assessment with fragment sampling,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 538–554

    2022

  29. [37]

    Neighbourhood representative sampling for efficient end-to- end video quality assessment,

    H. Wu, C. Chen, L. Liao, J. Hou, W. Sun, Q. Yan, J. Gu, and W. Lin, “Neighbourhood representative sampling for efficient end-to- end video quality assessment,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 15 185–15 202, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Exploring opinion-unaware video quality assessment with semantic affinity criterion,

    H. Wu, L. Liao, J. Hou, C. Chen, E. Zhang, A. Wang, W. Sun, Q. Yan, and W. Lin, “Exploring opinion-unaware video quality assessment with semantic affinity criterion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13269 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Q-align: Teaching lmms for visual scoring via discrete text-defined levels,

    H. Wu, Z. Zhang, W. Zhang, C. Chen, C. Li, L. Liao, A. Wang, E. Zhang, W. Sun, Q. Yan, X. Min, G. Zhai, and W. Lin, “Q-align: Teaching lmms for visual scoring via discrete text-defined levels,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17090, 2023, equal Contribution by Wu, Haoning and Zhang,...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [2021]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    arXiv

  33. [2022]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.12086

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.12086

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.