Image aesthetic assessment (IAA) has extensive applications in content creation, album management, and recommendation systems, etc. In such applications, it is commonly needed to pick out the most aesthetically pleasing image from a series of images with subtle aesthetic variations, a topic we refer to as fine-grained IAA. Unfortunately, state-of-the-art IAA models are typically designed for coarse-grained evaluation, where images with notable aesthetic differences are evaluated independently on an absolute scale. These models are inherently limited in discriminating fine-grained aesthetic differences. To address the dilemma, we contribute FGAesthetics, a fine-grained IAA database with 32,217 images organized into 10,028 series, which are sourced from diverse categories including Natural, AIGC, and Cropping. Annotations are collected via pairwise comparisons within each series. We also devise Series Refinement and Rank Calibration to ensure the reliability of data and labels. Based on FGAesthetics, we further propose FGAesQ, a novel IAA framework that learns discriminative aesthetic scores from relative ranks through Difference-preserved Tokenization (DiffToken), Comparative Text-assisted Alignment (CTAlign), and Rank-aware Regression (RankReg). FGAesQ enables accurate aesthetic assessment in fine-grained scenarios while still maintains competitive performance in coarse-grained evaluation. Extensive experiments and comparisons demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Year
Num. Img
Data Type
Img Source
Label Type
Evaluation Concern
CUHK-PQ [ 25 ]
2011
17,673
Single
Natural
Classification
Aesthetic Classification
AVA [ 26 ]
2012
255,530
Single
Natural
MOS
Aesthetic Scoring
AADB [ 21 ]
2016
10,000
Single
Natural
MOS
Aesthetic Attributes
TAD66K [ 11 ]
2022
66,327
Single
Natural/Art
MOS
Theme-specific Aesthetics
BAID [ 48 ]
2023
60,337
Single
Art
MOS
Artistic Aesthetics
ICAA17K [ 12 ]
2023
17,726
Single
Natural
MOS
Color Aesthetics
Table 1: Comparison between the proposed FGAesthetics and representative IAA datasets.
Figure 2: Overview of the construction pipeline for FGAesthetics . The pipeline consists of three stages: (a) Data Collection. Visually similar photo series are collected from three distinct sources: Natural, AIGC, and Cropping. (b) Series Refinement. Noisy series data undergo rigorous filtering using a Metric-MLLMs-Human refinement protocol. (c) Rank Calibration. Pairwise comparisons are annotated within each series, excluding data that cannot be aesthetically distinguished to obtain calibrated aesthetic rankings.
Figure 3: Statistical analysis of FGAesthetics. (a) Image and series count distribution across Natural, AIGC, and Cropping. (b) Within-series similarity distributions measured by LPIPS (low-level) [ 51 ] , DreamSim (mid-level) [ 9 ] , and CLIPScore (high-level) [ 13 ] across three sources. Note that LPIPS and DreamSim are subtracted from 1, ensuring consistent polarity with CLIPScore, where higher values indicate greater similarity.
Figure 4: Overall pipeline of the proposed FGAesQ . FGAesQ learns discriminative aesthetic scores from relative ranks through three modules: (a) Difference-preserved Tokenization (DiffToken) selectively maintains difference regions at their original resolution while downscaling others. (b) Comparative Text-assisted Alignment (CTAlign) achieves distinctive aesthetic visual representations. (c) Rank-aware Regression (RankReg) rectifies the coarse-grained score regression with fine-grained aesthetic rankings.
Methods
Params
Natural
AIGC
Cropping
Pair-level
Series-level
Pair-level
Series-level
Pair-level
Series-level
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
NIMA (TIP 2018) [ 36 ]
54.3M
0.589
0.588
0.493
0.225
0.566
0.565
0.379
0.137
0.655
0.649
0.272
0.312
MLSP (CVPR 2019) [ 15 ]
114 M
0.608
0.607
0.531
0.255
0.604
0.602
0.414
0.182
0.710
0.710
0.396
0.430
MUSIQ (ICCV 2021) [ 17 ]
78.6M
0.607
0.606
0.487
0.233
0.535
0.532
0.344
0.054
0.731
0.731
0.375
0.495
TANet (IJCAI 2022) [ 11 ]
13.9M
0.629
0.628
0.539
0.281
0.591
0.590
0.447
0.195
0.641
0.641
0.244
0.295
Table 2: Performance comparison between the proposed FGAesQ and state-of-the-art IAA methods on FGAesthetics. Results are reported across all three image sources (Natural, AIGC, and Cropping) for both pair-level and series-level evaluations. Model parameter counts are also provided. The top two results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Methods
AVA
FGAesthetics
SRCC
PLCC
Pair
Series
NIMA (TIP 2018) [ 36 ]
0.633
0.647
0.602
0.303
MUSIQ (ICCV 2021) [ 17 ]
0.726
0.738
0.624
0.331
VILA (CVPR 2023) [ 18 ]
0.774
0.774
0.659
0.399
Charm (CVPR 2025) [ 3 ]
0.777
0.779
0.665
0.419
NIMA (Fine-tuned) [ 36 ]
0.330 ( -0.303)
0.313 ( -0.334)
0.649 ( +0.047)
0.350 ( +0.047)
Table 3: Balance between coarse-grained (AVA) and fine-grained (FGAesthetics) evaluations. Metrics shown are ( Acc , F1 )/2 for Pair and ( s-Acc , s-SRCC )/2 for Series. Best in bold.
Methods
ICAA17K
AADB
TAD66K
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
NIMA [ 36 ]
0.629
0.629
0.365
0.371
0.392
0.370
MUSIQ [ 17 ]
0.581
0.578
0.331
0.343
0.314
0.332
VILA [ 18 ]
0.652
0.663
0.548
0.561
0.413
0.443
UNIAA [ 53 ]
0.472
0.390
-
-
0.261
0.260
Charm [ 3 ]
0.651
0.661
0.510
0.528
0.411
0.441
Table 4: Cross-dataset validation on three IAA benchmarks: ICAA17K [ 12 ] , AADB [ 21 ] , and TAD66K [ 11 ] . Results for UNIAA [ 53 ] on AADB are omitted as data is used in training.
Methods
Coarse-grained
Fine-grained
SRCC
PLCC
Pair
Series
w/o Fine
0.713
0.726
0.578
0.364
w/o Coarse
0.031
0.050
0.565
0.299
Coarse | Fine
0.200
0.214
0.637
0.380
w/o DiffToken
0.751
0.760
0.666
0.423
w/o CTAlign
0.770
0.780
0.747
0.581
Table 5: Ablation study on training strategies and model components. ‘w/o’ is removal of the specified training or component. Metrics are ( Acc , F1 )/2 for Pair and ( s-Acc , s-SRCC )/2 for Series.
Figure 5: Visualization of evaluation results on three test series. Images arranged left-to-right in decreasing aesthetic quality. Red boxes and text indicate the best aesthetics.
Sources
Collected Img Count
After Series Refinement
After Rank Calibration
Series Count
Pair Count
Avg. Pairs per Series
SPS [ 5 ]
15,543
12,522
12,522
4,755
12,558
2.64
LSVQ [ 49 ]
2630
565
556
150
636
4.24
Pick-a-pic [ 20 ]
13,917
3,751
3,719
1,685
2,115
1.26
Q-Eval-100K [ 52 ]
11,430
418
372
180
196
1.09
Midjourney [ 14 ]
11,352
2,815
2,599
909
2,124
2.34
NIGHTS [ 9 ]
9,822
1,944
1,895
647
1,590
2.46
Table 6: Source Distribution and Statistics of FGAesthetics
Figure 6: Detailed Procedure of Metrics Filtering. (a) Generic measures (average of SSIM and SIFT) exclude outliers within visually similar photo series. (b) Domain-specific measures (IoU for cropping series, T2I alignment scores for AIGC series) effectively identify nearly identical and dissimilar images.
Figure 7: Annotation platform for Human Qualification. The platform displays all images from a single series on one page, enabling annotators to identify and filter outliers.
Figure 8: Annotation platform for Pairwise Comparison. The platform displays two images side-by-side for aesthetic comparison. Annotators make a forced-choice selection from three options: ’A is better’, ’B is better’, or ’Equally favored’.
Figure 9: Word clouds visualizing most frequent rationales for MLLM-generated comparative textual descriptions.
Backbone
Natural
AIGC
Cropping
Fine-grained
Coarse-grained
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Pair
Series
SRCC
PLCC
ViT-B/16
0.779
0.779
0.753
0.729
0.709
0.707
0.561
0.482
0.774
0.773
0.488
0.590
0.753
0.600
0.770
0.781
ViT-B/32
0.711
0.711
0.634
0.503
0.653
0.651
0.445
0.301
0.740
0.740
0.491
0.548
0.701
0.487
0.747
0.760
Table 7: Backbone ablation results on fine-grained and coarse-grained IAA tasks. For fine-grained evaluation on FGAesthetics, we report pair-level local discrimination using Acc and F1 , and series-level ranking quality using s-Acc and s-SRCC across three source categories (Natural, AIGC, Cropping). Pair and Series represent category-averaged values of ( Acc + F1 )/2 and ( s-Acc + s-SRCC )/2, respectively. For coarse-grained evaluation, we report SRCC and PLCC on AVA [ 26 ] .
Backbone
Natural
AIGC
Cropping
Fine-grained
Coarse-grained
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Acc
F1
s-Acc
s-SRCC
Pair
Series
SRCC
PLCC
FGAesQ
0.779
0.779
0.753
0.729
0.709
0.707
0.561
0.482
0.774
0.773
0.488
0.590
0.753
0.600
0.770
0.781
w/o Natural
0.745
0.745
0.710
0.630
0.704
0.703
0.569
0.455
0.771
0.771
0.488
0.583
0.740
0.573
0.770
0.782
w/o AIGC
0.767
0.766
0.720
0.675
0.687
0.685
0.542
0.425
0.765
0.765
0.482
0.577
0.739
0.570
0.776
0.786
w/o Cropping
0.765
0.764
0.727
0.678
0.699
0.698
0.552
0.438
0.755
0.755
0.462
0.558
0.739
0.569
0.772
0.783
Table 8: Out-of-Distribution generalization performance. OOD generalization is evaluated by training FGAesQ with one source category excluded and testing on fine-grained (all three categories) and coarse-grained (AVA [ 26 ] ) benchmarks.
Figure 10: Ablation study on DiffToken configuration. Performance is evaluated across different difference localization patch sizes and percentile thresholds for identifying aesthetics-decisive regions. Fine-grained metrics show pair- and series-averaged performance across Natural, AIGC, and Cropping categories. Coarse-grained metrics report SRCC and PLCC on AVA [ 26 ] .
Figure 11: Additional visualization examples of FGAesQ on test series from Natural, AIGC, and Cropping categories.
Traditional Image Aesthetic Assessment (IAA) methods mainly rely on regressing absolute Mean Opinion Scores (MOS). However, such a paradigm overlooks the inherently dynamic nature of human aesthetic perception, which relies on subconscious comparison against implicit visual references. Consequently, the lack of causal reasoning regarding aesthetic differences prevents models from learning generalizable aesthetic principles, thus limiting their generalization across diverse scenarios. In this work, we rethink the IAA task and propose Relative Edit-induced Difference Aesthetic learning (RED-Aes), a novel framework that leverages controllable image editing models to simulate the human aesthetic reasoning process. Instead of fitting absolute score distributions, RED-Aes explicitly learns the visual factors that drive aesthetic changes. To support this paradigm, we construct the RED-20k dataset, which comprises editing-based image pairs, quantitative aesthetic differences, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Furthermore, we introduce a three-stage training strategy guided by a relative ranking consistency reward, optimizing the model solely via relative supervision. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RED-Aes achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple public benchmarks, exhibiting superior generalization capabilities.
Pairwise preferences and pointwise ratings are the two dominant annotation protocols in image aesthetic assessment (IAA), yet existing benchmarks adopt only one, leaving their complementarity unmeasured under controlled conditions. We introduce PPaint, a matched dual-protocol benchmark in which 15 domain experts, 5 per category, annotate 150 Chinese paintings under both protocols across five aesthetic dimensions, collecting 45,900 pairwise expert judgments through a locally dense preference design alongside the matched ratings. The matched design reveals complementary strengths: preferences yield more consistent ordinal rankings, while ratings anchor the absolute score scale. Fusing both signals via two independent preference-to-score methods yields a fused expert ground truth on which the two constructions converge to nearly identical scores. The same preference-to-score principle extends to label-free VLM training. PSDistill converts VLM pairwise judgments into calibrated pseudo-scores via an Elo reference pool, and trains the same VLM with confidence-weighted ranking optimization to produce a single-pass aesthetic scorer. Trained on a single painting category, the distilled Qwen3-VL-8B improves mean SRCC from 0.504 to 0.709 across all three categories, outperforming all open-source baselines including the dedicated aesthetic model ArtiMuse and matching closed-source Gemini-3.1-Pro within 0.04 SRCC at single-pass inference cost, with cross-domain transfer further validated on APDDv2. We will release the full PPaint dataset and training code.
Yuanpei Zhao, Jie Lin, Chao Zhang +5
1Sichuan University · 2NetEase Fuxi AI Lab · †Work done during an internship at NetEase Fuxi AI Lab. +1
Image aesthetic assessment (IAA) aims to predict the aesthetic quality of images as perceived by humans. While recent IAA models achieve strong predictive performance, they offer little insight into the factors driving their predictions. Yet for users, understanding why an image is considered pleasing or not is as valuable as the score itself, motivating growing interest in interpretability within IAA. When humans evaluate aesthetics, they naturally rely on high-level cues to justify their judgments. Motivated by this observation, we propose an interpretable IAA framework grounded in human-understandable aesthetic concepts. We learn these concepts in an accessible manner, constructing a subspace that forms the foundation of an inherently interpretable model. To capture nuanced influences on aesthetic perception beyond explicit concepts, we introduce a simple yet effective residual predictor. Experiments on photographic and artistic datasets demonstrate that our method achieves competitive predictive performance while offering transparent, human-understandable aesthetic judgments.
Xiao-Chang Liu, Johan Wagemans
Research Unit Brain and Cognition, KU Leuven Leuven, Belgium