Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 47 references

An Evaluation Framework for Product Images Background Inpainting based on Human Feedback and Product Consistency

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read HFPC is an automatic evaluator for AI-inpainted product images that combines a human-feedback reward model with a segmentation-based product consistency check, reporting 96.4% precision in filtering low-quality images.

desk verdict HFPC-44k is a genuinely useful dataset, but the paper overstates what the consistency module and the reported metrics actually show. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17504 v2 pith:ZWROWV6A submitted 2024-12-23 cs.CV cs.AI

Yuqi Liang , Jun Luo , Xiaoxi Guo , Jianqi Bi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords backgroundinpaintingproductimagegenerationqualityassessmenthumanpreferencerewardmodelconsistencysegmentationHFPC-44kBLIP
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

HFPC is an automatic evaluator for AI-generated product images whose backgrounds have been replaced by inpainting. The paper claims that two failure modes dominate this task — inappropriate backgrounds and products that change or degrade during generation — and that both can be scored without a human in the loop. A reward model trained on 44,000 human-annotated image pairs judges background appropriateness, while a segmentation-based consistency module compares the product region between original and generated images. On the authors' HFPC-44k test set, the combined system reaches 96.4% precision in filtering low-quality images and outperforms existing image-quality metrics in correlation with human scores. If the result holds, e-commerce teams could replace expensive manual review of inpainted product images with an automatic pass/fail gate.

What carries the argument

Two parallel modules carry the evaluation. The first is an image-referenced reward model built on the BLIP image encoder: it takes an original image and a generated image, uses an attention mechanism to compare their features, and is trained with a composite loss (cross-entropy ranking loss plus binary classification loss) to score human-passed generations above human-rejected ones. The second is the product consistency assessment module: Grounding DINO produces bounding-box prompts from the text prompt 'product', a fine-tuned EfficientSAM segments the product masks, masks are matched across images by highest IoU and smallest positional distance, and the average pixel difference within each matched pair becomes the inconsistency score. An image passes only if both the background score and the product-consistency score meet thresholds.

What would settle it

Take a set of generated images whose backgrounds human reviewers pass but whose products have been re-lit, slightly rotated, or re-colored; if HFPC's product consistency module rejects a large share of them as inconsistent while the reward model accepts them, then the pixel-difference criterion is misclassifying acceptable edits, and the reported recall gain would not survive such an evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-module framework, Human Feedback and Product Consistency (HFPC), can evaluate background-inpainted product images the way a human reviewer would. Module one, the Image-Referenced Reward Model, starts from BLIP image features for the original and generated image, fuses them with an attention mechanism, and is trained with ranking and classification losses so that human-approved generations score above rejected ones. Module two segments the product in both images using Grounding DINO prompts plus a fine-tuned EfficientSAM, matches product masks by IoU and positional distance, and measures the average pixel difference inside matched masks as product inconsistency. The paper reports that the full HFPC system reaches 96.4% precision in filtering low-quality images, improves low-quality recall over the reward model alone (0.403 versus 0.387), and achieves higher Pearson and Spearman correlations than CLIP-Score, CLIP-IQA, NIMA, and ImageReward on the HFPC-44k test set.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the same product will show nearly the same shape and position in the original and generated images, so masks can be matched by overlap and position and pixel differences inside the masks can be read as product inconsistency; if segmentation fails or a legitimate edit changes pose or lighting, the consistency score is untrustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • E-commerce and advertising pipelines can use HFPC as an automatic gate for AI-inpainted product images, reducing dependence on manual annotation.
  • HFPC's product consistency module catches failures the reward model alone accepts, so combining both modules raises low-quality image recall (0.403 versus 0.387).
  • The HFPC-44k dataset of 44,244 original/generated pairs with human pass/fail labels provides a benchmark for future background-inpainting quality assessment.
  • Because HFPC produces continuous scores, it can serve as a reward signal for fine-tuning generative models, not just as a filter.
  • The ablations show that feeding the original image through attention and adding the classification loss are both necessary for the reported precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the same two-module recipe — a referenced reward model plus a mask-based fidelity check — should transfer to other foreground-preserving edits such as virtual try-on, portrait background replacement, or object removal, with the text prompt changed from 'product' to the target object.
  • The pixel-difference consistency score probably conflates benign lighting, pose, and color shifts with genuine product alteration; a testable refinement would compare a feature-space perceptual distance inside the mask against raw pixel difference on images that differ only in lighting.
  • Because HFPC-44k is drawn from one production inpainting pipeline, the 96.4% precision figure is distribution-bound; re-measuring on outputs of other inpainting models or on new product categories would show how much of the alignment is intrinsic to the method rather than to the dataset.
  • Operationally, the two scores can be decoupled: the consistency module can act as a hard pass/fail gate while the reward score serves as a ranker, letting a deployment tune the trade-off between background aesthetics and product fidelity separately.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HFPC, a two-module automatic evaluation framework for AI-based product background inpainting. Module 1 trains an image-referenced reward model (IRRM) on a collected 44k human-annotated dataset of original/generated image pairs, using BLIP features, an attention module, and ranking/classification losses. Module 2 uses Grounding DINO plus a fine-tuned EfficientSAM to segment products in both images, matches masks by IoU and positional distance, and scores product inconsistency as the average pixel difference inside matched masks. The authors report PLCC/SRCC correlations and precision/recall metrics showing HFPC outperforms CLIP-Score, CLIP-IQA, NIMA, and ImageReward, with 96.4% precision and improved low-quality recall, and they conclude that the framework can significantly reduce manual annotation cost.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, HFPC would be a practically useful task-specific evaluator for product-image background inpainting, with a new 44k human-annotated dataset and an automatic pre-filter that could reduce time-consuming human review. The strengths of the paper include the public release of dataset and code, a focused reward-model ablation, a concrete attempt to address product-consistency failures that generic IQA metrics miss, and an evaluation grounded in a real e-commerce workflow. However, the central claim of reducing manual annotation rests on an unvalidated product-consistency module and on inconsistent dataset split and metric reporting. These issues are load-bearing and should be resolved before the paper is accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Expansion of Training Data; Evaluation Protocol] The dataset split is internally inconsistent. The text states that HFPC-44k contains 44,244 pairs, with 35,000 used for training and "the remaining 8,372" for testing, which sums to 43,372; the Evaluation Protocol then states the model was trained on 28,000, validated on 7,000, and tested on 8,000, summing to 43,000. These numbers are not reconcilable by rounding. Please report the exact pair counts per split, the relationship between the 35,000/8,372 split and the 28,000/7,000/8,000 split, and clarify whether the test set is the same in both descriptions.
  2. [Evaluation Protocol, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The metric definitions are inconsistent with their names. Pb in Eq. (4) is the precision of the filtered set, not an "accuracy rate"; please rename it (e.g., precision) throughout. Rg in Eq. (6) is written as N_filtered,high-quality / N_original,high-quality; if "filtered" means "retained", this is the recall of high-quality images, but if it means "removed", the metric is the high-quality false-positive fraction and high values would be undesirable. Please define the filtering operation and the numerator unambiguously, and report the class priors so that the reported Pb and Rb values can be interpreted.
  3. [Product Consistency Assessment Module; Overall Results] The product-consistency module is not validated against human labels. The consistency score is the average pixel difference inside matched masks, so any accepted inpainting that changes lighting, shadow, color grading, or slightly shifts the product will produce large pixel differences and be flagged as inconsistent. The paper reports no standalone precision/recall for this module, no agreement with human product-consistency judgments, and no threshold analysis. Table 1 shows that adding the module changes Rb from 0.387 to 0.403, Pb from 0.965 to 0.964, and Rg from 0.924 to 0.922, a mixed and small aggregate effect. Because the claimed reduction in manual annotation depends on this module correctly filtering product-inconsistent images, please provide per-module human-validated metrics and show that the pixel-difference score aligns with human judgments on a held-out product-consistency test set.
  4. [Product Consistency Assessment Module] The mask matching step assumes that the same products will exhibit "similar shapes and positional arrangements" in the original and generated images. This assumption is violated precisely for the failure cases the module is designed to catch: when inpainting moves, resizes, duplicates, or partially removes a product, IoU and positional matching will either fail to find a match or match to the wrong product, making the subsequent pixel difference meaningless. Please report matching accuracy on a held-out set with ground-truth product correspondences, or replace the IoU/positional heuristic with a semantic matching procedure robust to layout changes.
  5. [Conclusion; Table 3] The abstract and conclusion claim that HFPC can "significantly reduce the expense of manual annotation," but no experiment measures annotation cost or simulates a human-in-the-loop workflow. Table 3 reports only GPU memory and inference time. Please add a cost/benefit analysis (e.g., the number of images a human must review after HFPC pre-filtering at a chosen operating point, compared with full manual review) or soften the claim to what the current evidence supports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Ablation Study] The word "addictional" should be "additional".
  2. [Method, Image-Referenced Reward Model] The text says "comparative learning" and "triplet loss function," but the actual loss in Eqs. (1)-(3) is a ranking loss plus a classification loss; please align the wording with the equations.
  3. [Abstract and Dataset URL] The dataset URL in the abstract contains a space ("background inpainting products dataset") and is not clickable as printed; please provide the correct URL.
  4. [Method, Product Consistency Assessment Module] Notation is hard to follow: "Mori" should be something like "M_orig", and "N_i^match" should be defined in a displayed equation with clear subscripts.
  5. [Overall Results] Table 1 is described as showing that HFPC performs best on all indicators, but no error bars, statistical significance tests, or multiple-run variance are reported; at minimum, state whether the differences are stable across repeated training runs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reward model is trained on human labels in a standard supervised split, and the product-consistency module is an independent deterministic heuristic.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. Module 1 (IRRM) is a supervised reward model trained on human pass/fail labels from the HFPC-44k dataset, and the reported PLCC/SRCC/Pb/Rb/Rg are computed on a held-out 8k test split; this is standard supervised evaluation, not a prediction forced by construction. Module 2 is a deterministic post-hoc filter: masks from fine-tuned EfficientSAM/Grounding DINO are matched by IoU and positional distance, and the consistency score is an average pixel difference inside matched masks. This heuristic is defined by the authors and is not fitted to the human labels, so it cannot reduce to its own inputs. The only self-citation (Liang et al. 2024, RAHF) appears in Related Work as context and is not load-bearing for any result. The pixel-difference operationalization of 'product inconsistency' may misalign with human judgment under lighting or pose changes, but that is a construct-validity concern rather than circularity. No equation or evaluation step equates an output to a fitted input, and no uniqueness or ansatz claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions about mask matching, human label reliability, and the validity of pixel-difference as a consistency measure. The undisclosed acceptance thresholds are free parameters that directly determine the reported precision and recall. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Acceptance threshold for reward model score = not disclosed
    The paper says an image is acceptable if it meets 'predefined thresholds' for background appropriateness and product consistency, but the actual threshold values are never given. They are chosen by the authors and affect the reported precision/recall.
  • Acceptance threshold for product consistency difference = not disclosed
    Similarly, the threshold for the average pixel difference within matched masks that triggers a fail is not reported.
  • Number of KMeans clusters = 25
    Used to balance the training data by category; chosen by the authors as 'the most suitable number', no formal criterion.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Same products will exhibit similar shapes and positional arrangements in original and generated images.
    Stated in the Product Consistency Assessment Module; needed for mask matching.
  • domain assumption Human binary pass/fail labels are reliable ground truth for image quality.
    No inter-annotator agreement or annotation protocol is reported; the reward model is trained on these labels.
  • domain assumption Average pixel difference within matched product masks reflects visual product inconsistency.
    This is the metric used to measure consistency; no validation against human judgements of inconsistency is provided.
  • domain assumption Pretrained models (BLIP, EfficientSAM, Grounding DINO) provide adequate features and masks without task-specific adaptation beyond fine-tuning segmentation on 500 images.
    The paper relies on these off-the-shelf components as black boxes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Evaluation Framework for Product Images Background Inpainting based on Human Feedback and Product Consistency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWROWV6A

@misc{pith2026241217504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Evaluation Framework for Product Images Background Inpainting based on Human Feedback and Product Consistency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWROWV6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17504}
}
read the original abstract

In product advertising applications, the automated inpainting of backgrounds utilizing AI techniques in product images has emerged as a significant task. However, the techniques still suffer from issues such as inappropriate background and inconsistent product in generated product images, and existing approaches for evaluating the quality of generated product images are mostly inconsistent with human feedback causing the evaluation for this task to depend on manual annotation. To relieve the issues above, this paper proposes Human Feedback and Product Consistency (HFPC), which can automatically assess the generated product images based on two modules. Firstly, to solve inappropriate backgrounds, human feedback on 44,000 automated inpainting product images is collected to train a reward model based on multi-modal features extracted from BLIP and comparative learning. Secondly, to filter generated product images containing inconsistent products, a fine-tuned segmentation model is employed to segment the product of the original and generated product images and then compare the differences between the above two. Extensive experiments have demonstrated that HFPC can effectively evaluate the quality of generated product images and significantly reduce the expense of manual annotation. Moreover, HFPC achieves state-of-the-art(96.4% in precision) in comparison to other open-source visual-quality-assessment models. Dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/created-Bi/background_inpainting_products_dataset

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of original and AI-inpainting product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The HFPC contains two modules working in parallel. The first module is a reward model based on the multimodal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reward model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Product consistency assessment model ucts” were uniformly used during training to ensure consis￾tent cueing. Let the m masks generated from the original image is denoted as Mori = {M1, · · · , Mi , · · · , Mm}. n masks generated from the generated image are denoted as …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of clustering of product images. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of product category distributions be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Attention map Inference Time and GPU Overhead Inference performance tests were conducted on the P100 machine (16GB), evaluating the GPU usage and inference time of both the Reward Model and Product Consistency Assessment module with batch size set to 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of results of HFPC Visualization of Attention Mechanisms for the Reward Model Our Reward Model enhances the understanding of the relationship between the original image and the gener￾ated image through an attention mechanism. This mecha￾nism enables the m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Automated Virtual Product Placement and Assessment in Images using Diffusion Models

    Alam, M. M.; Sokhandan, N.; and Goodman, E. 2024. Automated Virtual Product Placement and Assessment in Images using Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01130

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Bai, Y.; Jones, A.; Ndousse, K.; Askell, A.; Chen, A.; DasSarma, N.; Drain, D.; Fort, S.; Ganguli, D.; Henighan, T.; et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Barratt, S.; and Sharma, R. 2018. A note on the inception score. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01973

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Bhargavi, D.; Sindwani, K.; and Gholami, S. 2023. Zero-shot virtual product placement in videos. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences, 289--297

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    M.; Mar \' n-Jim \'e nez, M

    Castro, F. M.; Mar \' n-Jim \'e nez, M. J.; Guil, N.; Schmid, C.; and Alahari, K. 2018. End-to-end incremental learning. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 233--248

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y.; Xia, R.; Yang, K.; and Zou, K. 2024. DNNAM: Image inpainting algorithm via deep neural networks and attention mechanism. Applied Soft Computing, 154: 111392

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Feng, X.; Pei, W.; Jia, Z.; Chen, F.; Zhang, D.; and Lu, G. 2021. Deep-masking generative network: A unified framework for background restoration from superimposed images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 4867--4882

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Gao, W.; Wan, F.; Pan, X.; Peng, Z.; Tian, Q.; Han, Z.; Zhou, B.; and Ye, Q. 2021. Ts-cam: Token semantic coupled attention map for weakly supervised object localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2886--2895

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    L.; and Thomaz, A

    Griffith, S.; Subramanian, K.; Scholz, J.; Isbell, C. L.; and Thomaz, A. L. 2013. Policy shaping: Integrating human feedback with reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26

    2013

  2. [10]

    V.; Prabhala, H.; Paul, S.; and Von Platen, P

    Gupta, Y.; Jaddipal, V. V.; Prabhala, H.; Paul, S.; and Von Platen, P. 2024. Progressive knowledge distillation of stable diffusion xl using layer level loss. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02677

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    W.; Paul, J.; Trott, S.; Guo, C.; and Wu, H.-H

    Hao, A. W.; Paul, J.; Trott, S.; Guo, C.; and Wu, H.-H. 2021. Two decades of research on nation branding: A review and future research agenda. International Marketing Review, 38(1): 46--69

    2021

  4. [12]

    L.; and Wu, Y

    He, J.; Wang, C. L.; and Wu, Y. 2021. Building the connection between nation and commercial brand: an integrative review and future research directions. International Marketing Review, 38(1): 19--35

    2021

  5. [13]

    L.; and Choi, Y

    Hessel, J.; Holtzman, A.; Forbes, M.; Bras, R. L.; and Choi, Y. 2021. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08718

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jayasumana, S.; Ramalingam, S.; Veit, A.; Glasner, D.; Chakrabarti, A.; and Kumar, S. 2024. Rethinking fid: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9307--9315

    2024

  7. [15]

    Karras, T.; Laine, S.; and Aila, T. 2019. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4401--4410

    2019

  8. [16]

    Kirstain, Y.; Polyak, A.; Singer, U.; Matiana, S.; Penna, J.; and Levy, O. 2023. Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 36652--36663

    2023

  9. [17]

    B.; and Stone, P

    Knox, W. B.; and Stone, P. 2011. Augmenting reinforcement learning with human feedback. In ICML 2011 Workshop on New Developments in Imitation Learning (July 2011), volume 855

    2011

  10. [18]

    Krishna, K.; and Murty, M. N. 1999. Genetic K-means algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 29(3): 433--439

    1999

  11. [19]

    Lei, C.; Liu, D.; Li, W.; Zha, Z.-J.; and Li, H. 2016. Comparative deep learning of hybrid representations for image recommendations. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2545--2553

    2016

  12. [20]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Xiong, C.; and Hoi, S. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International conference on machine learning, 12888--12900. PMLR

    2022

  13. [21]

    Liang, Y.; He, J.; Li, G.; Li, P.; Klimovskiy, A.; Carolan, N.; Sun, J.; Pont-Tuset, J.; Young, S.; Yang, F.; et al. 2024. Rich human feedback for text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19401--19411

    2024

  14. [22]

    Liu, S.; Zeng, Z.; Ren, T.; Li, F.; Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Li, C.; Yang, J.; Su, H.; Zhu, J.; et al. 2023. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mao, A.; Mohri, M.; and Zhong, Y. 2023. Cross-entropy loss functions: Theoretical analysis and applications. In International conference on Machine learning, 23803--23828. PMLR

    2023

  16. [24]

    Moritz, P.; Nishihara, R.; and Jordan, M. 2016. A linearly-convergent stochastic L-BFGS algorithm. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 249--258. PMLR

    2016

  17. [25]

    S.; and Murala, S

    Phutke, S. S.; and Murala, S. 2023. Image inpainting via spatial projections. Pattern Recognition, 133: 109040

    2023

  18. [26]

    Podell, D.; English, Z.; Lacey, K.; Blattmann, A.; Dockhorn, T.; M \"u ller, J.; Penna, J.; and Rombach, R. 2023. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A.; Deriche, M.; Beghdadi, A.; and Amin, A

    Qureshi, M. A.; Deriche, M.; Beghdadi, A.; and Amin, A. 2017. A critical survey of state-of-the-art image inpainting quality assessment metrics. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 49: 177--191

    2017

  20. [28]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

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

    2021

  21. [29]

    Sedgwick, P. 2014. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Bmj, 349

    2014

  22. [30]

    Talebi, H.; and Milanfar, P. 2018. NIMA: Neural image assessment. IEEE transactions on image processing, 27(8): 3998--4011

    2018

  23. [31]

    Vaswani, A. 2017. Attention is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03762

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Verma, S.; Sharma, A.; Sheshadri, R.; and Raman, S. 2024. GraphFill: Deep Image Inpainting using Graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 4996--5006

    2024

  25. [33]

    V.; Frantc, V

    Voronin, V. V.; Frantc, V. A.; Marchuk, V. I.; Sherstobitov, A. I.; and Egiazarian, K. 2015. No-reference visual quality assessment for image inpainting. In Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems XIII, volume 9399, 234--241. SPIE

    2015

  26. [34]

    L.; Li, D.; Barnes, B

    Wang, C. L.; Li, D.; Barnes, B. R.; and Ahn, J. 2012. Country image, product image and consumer purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Business Review, 21(6): 1041--1051

    2012

  27. [35]

    C.; and Loy, C

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

    2023

  28. [36]

    Wu, X.; Huang, S.; and Wei, F. 2024. Multimodal Large Language Model is a Human-Aligned Annotator for Text-to-Image Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15100

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wu, X.; Sun, K.; Zhu, F.; Zhao, R.; and Li, H. 2023. Human preference score: Better aligning text-to-image models with human preference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2096--2105

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L.; Ye, Y.; Liu, Z.; Guo, Y.; and Fu, Y. 2019. Large scale incremental learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 374--382

    2019

  31. [39]

    Xiong, Y.; Varadarajan, B.; Wu, L.; Xiang, X.; Xiao, F.; Zhu, C.; Dai, X.; Wang, D.; Sun, F.; Iandola, F.; et al. 2024. Efficientsam: Leveraged masked image pretraining for efficient segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Wu, Y.; Tong, Y.; Li, Q.; Ding, M.; Tang, J.; and Dong, Y. 2024. Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  33. [41]

    Yang, S.; Wu, T.; Shi, S.; Lao, S.; Gong, Y.; Cao, M.; Wang, J.; and Yang, Y. 2022. Maniqa: Multi-dimension attention network for no-reference image quality assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1191--1200

    2022

  34. [42]

    Yu, Y.; Zhang, W.; and Deng, Y. 2021. Frechet inception distance (fid) for evaluating gans. China University of Mining Technology Beijing Graduate School, 3

    2021

  35. [43]

    Zhai, G.; and Min, X. 2020. Perceptual image quality assessment: a survey. Science China Information Sciences, 63: 1--52

    2020

  36. [44]

    Zhang, L.; Wen, T.; and Shi, J. 2020. Deep image blending. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 231--240

    2020

  37. [45]

    Zhang, X.; Zhai, D.; Li, T.; Zhou, Y.; and Lin, Y. 2023. Image inpainting based on deep learning: A review. Information Fusion, 90: 74--94

    2023

  38. [46]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  39. [47]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.