Adaptive Image Quality Assessment via Teaching Large Multimodal Model to Compare

While recent advancements in large multimodal models (LMMs) have significantly improved their abilities in image quality assessment (IQA) relying on absolute quality rating, how to transfer reliable relative quality comparison outputs to continuous perceptual quality scores remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce Compare2Score-an all-around LMM-based no-reference IQA (NR-IQA) model, which is capable of producing qualitatively comparative responses and effectively translating these discrete comparative levels into a continuous quality score. Specifically, during training, we present to generate scaled-up comparative instructions by comparing images from the same IQA dataset, allowing for more flexible integration of diverse IQA datasets. Utilizing the established large-scale training corpus, we develop a human-like visual quality comparator. During inference, moving beyond binary choices, we propose a soft comparison method that calculates the likelihood of the test image being preferred over multiple predefined anchor images. The quality score is further optimized by maximum a posteriori estimation with the resulting probability matrix. Extensive experiments on nine IQA datasets validate that the Compare2Score effectively bridges text-defined comparative levels during training with converted single image quality score for inference, surpassing state-of-the-art IQA models across diverse scenarios. Moreover, we verify that the probability-matrix-based inference conversion not only improves the rating accuracy of Compare2Score but also zero-shot general-purpose LMMs, suggesting its intrinsic effectiveness.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer nq4X7/10 · confidence 4/52024-06-14

Summary

The paper introduces an LMM-based no-reference IQA framework that can generate qualitative comparisons between images and translate those discrete comparisons into continuous quality scores. During training, it generates comparative instructions by comparing image pairs within the same IQA dataset, allowing flexible integration of multiple datasets. At inference, it uses a soft comparison by computing the likelihood of the test image being preferred over multiple anchor images, followed by MAP estimation to obtain the final quality score. Extensive experiments validate the state-of-the-art performance across synthetic and realistic distortions.

Strengths

1. Well-justified motivation for using relative comparisons instead of absolute ratings to combine IQA datasets. 2. The "soft comparison" inference strategy is innovative and effective for scoring images for relative quality comparison. 3. State-of-the-art performance on benchmark IQA datasets under various test condition. 4. The paper is well-written and easy to follow.

Weaknesses

The authors do not provide an in-depth analysis of the model's generalization capabilities on unseen distortions and datasets.

Questions

1. In Table 3, the results on KADID-10k and KonIQ-10k should also be given. 2. The authors use the MAP estimation to compute the quality scores. How about using other quality aggregation methods in [49]. 3. The impact of the anchor image selection strategy could be further explored, such as investigating different methods for anchor image selection. 4. Typo: KonIQ-10K -> KonIQ-10k.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

While the authors have identified some limitations in the conclusion section, a more comprehensive discussion on strategies to address the limitations would strengthen the paper and provide valuable insights for future research.

Reviewer WZ3r7/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-01

Summary

The paper presents a framework that trains an LMM as a visual quality comparator using relative image comparisons, and converts the discrete comparison outputs to continuous quality scores via a soft comparison method. It generates paired image comparisons from existing IQA datasets to train the LMM, and uses a probability matrix during inference to determine quality scores. Experiments demonstrate the proposed model outperforms prior NR-IQA methods on several synthetic and realistic distortions datasets.

Strengths

1.The proposed training strategy using comparative instructions is well-designed and addresses the challenge of combining different IQA datasets with varying perceptual scales. 2.The soft comparison method provides a more nuanced and informative approach to inference compared to traditional binary choices. 3.The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of Compare2Score through extensive experiments on nine IQA datasets, showing significant improvements over state-of-the-art models.

Weaknesses

1.In Tables 3 and 4, the performance on IDEFICS2 should be included, which is the latest version of IDEFICS family. 2.In Fig. 4, more details on computing the running time should be given, such as the device and input images. 3.The authors do not provide any indication of plans to open-source the code for Compare2Score, which may limit the replicability of the proposed approach by the research community. 4.The title should be revised from "adaptive image quality assessment via teaching large multimodal models to compare" to "adaptive image quality assessment via teaching a large multimodal model to compare", as the paper only utilizes one large multimodal model, mPLUG-Owl-2, rather than multiple models.

Questions

Please address the comments in the weaknesses section.

Rating

7

Confidence

5

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have thoughtfully discussed the paper's limitations in the conclusion, but one aspect that could be further discussed is the impact of anchor image selection on the model's performance and potential biases.

Reviewer WPaz7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper introduces Compare2Score, a novel NR-IQA model that harnesses the robust capabilities of LMM to interpret and integrate complex textual and visual inputs. The model is trained using a relative quality comparison strategy. Additionally, the authors propose a soft comparison approach that transforms discrete textual responses into continuous quality scores. Experiments conducted on nine IQA datasets validate its effectiveness.

Strengths

1. The motivation behind the method is clearly articulated. By integrating pairwise comparisons into the foundational model, the approach effectively tackles the data challenge problem prevalent in IQA. 2. This paper is easy to follow, providing a clear and coherent explanation of the proposed visual quality comparator and inference conversion strategy. The logical soundness of the method is well-articulated, ensuring transparency in its approach and fostering understanding among readers. 3. The method achieves promising results across nine IQA datasets, demonstrating its efficacy and robust performance in various evaluation scenarios. 4. Good reproducibility, code provided.

Weaknesses

1. How is the standard deviation determined when constructing image pairs? How variations in standard deviation can affect the pairing process and subsequent quality scores? The impact of this factor should be discussed. 2. Cost analyses are required. 3. Ablation studies on the network structure are insufficient.

Questions

Please refer to the weaknesses section.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Limitations are discussed and resolved.

Reviewer qViG7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This work presents a method named Compare2Score, which is capable of producing qualitatively comparative responses and effectively translating these discrete comparative levels into a continuous quality score. The method utilizes the predefined anchor images to calculates the likelihood and get the quality score. Extensive experiments verifies the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Strengths

1. The work utilizes anchor images to bridge the gap between discrete rank order and continuous score, which is sound and reasonable. 2. A probability matrix is introduced and computed to infer the quality score with MAP estimation. 3. The motivation and writing are neat.

Weaknesses

1. It is still somewhat unclear how to utilize the anchor images to align the difference scales among datasets. Are these anchor images from the same dataset or not? And how to guarantee the effectiveness when the anchor image and test image are from different distribution. 2. The first contribution [A repurposed training dataset] is not a main contribution, which is a general approach. 3. The method does not perform well on authentic datasets like CLIVE and KonIQ compared with Q-Align. It is weird and please try to explain.

Questions

I have some concerns on the details on aligning different scales, overstated contributions, and wish to see more explanation about the experimental results.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer WPaz2024-08-12

Thank you for the clarifications. It has addressed most of my concerns, so I will be raising my original score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC