Recent advances in reasoning-induced image quality assessment (IQA) have demonstrated the power of reinforcement learning to rank (RL2R) for training vision-language models (VLMs) to assess perceptual quality. However, existing approaches operate at a single granularity, predicting only an overall quality score, while overlooking the multi-dimensional nature of human quality perception, which encompasses attributes such as sharpness, color fidelity, noise level, and compositional aesthetics. In this paper, we propose MG-IQA (Multi-Granularity IQA), a multi-granularity reasoning framework that extends RL2R to jointly assess overall image quality and fine-grained quality attributes within a single inference pass. Our approach introduces three key innovations: (1) an attribute-aware prompting strategy that elicits structured multi-attribute reasoning from VLMs; (2) a multi-dimensional Thurstone reward model that computes attribute-specific fidelity rewards for group relative policy optimization; and (3) a cross-domain alignment mechanism that enables stable joint training across synthetic distortion, authentic distortion, and AI-generated image datasets without perceptual scale re-alignment. Extensive experiments on eight IQA benchmarks demonstrate that MG-IQA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in both overall quality prediction (average SRCC improvement of 2.1%) and attribute-level assessment, while generating interpretable, human-aligned quality descriptions.
Figures & tables
Method
BID
CLIVE
KonIQ
SPAQ
Liu13
SRIQA
Min19
AGIQA
Avg.
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
NIQE
.465
.496
.455
.508
.531
.537
.693
.669
.612
.597
.389
.412
.611
.629
.567
.585
.540
.554
BRISQUE
.571
.598
.607
.632
.665
.681
.717
.734
.591
.607
.424
.461
.647
.661
.528
.539
.594
.614
UNIQUE
.687
.702
.721
.738
.730
.763
.756
.781
.720
.744
.528
.547
.700
.732
.681
.699
.690
.713
MUSIQ
.694
.718
.742
.756
.746
.775
.771
.798
.738
.756
.539
.560
.717
.748
.694
.715
.705
.728
MANIQA
.702
.729
.755
.768
.758
.783
.782
.804
.745
.762
.547
.571
.724
.751
.707
.728
.715
.737
Table 1: Performance comparison under single-dataset training (trained on KADID-10k). Best results in bold , second best underlined . All methods are evaluated zero-shot on the remaining datasets.
Method
BID
CLIVE
KonIQ
Liu13
SRIQA
Min19
AGIQA
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
Q-Insight †
.755
.780
.808
.824
.811
.836
.791
.808
.605
.628
.772
.795
.772
.790
VQ-R1 †
.774
.798
.826
.841
.828
.853
.808
.825
.627
.651
.790
.813
.813
.831
MG-IQA †
.795
.818
.846
.860
.848
.872
.826
.843
.651
.675
.810
.833
.842
.858
Table 2: Performance comparison under multi-dataset training (trained on KADID-10k + SPAQ). † denotes multi-dataset training variants.
Configuration
Avg. SRCC
Avg. PLCC
Δ SRCC
Δ PLCC
Full MG-IQA
.798
.836
–
–
w/o multi-attribute reasoning (single-score)
.779
.816
− 1.9%
− 2.0%
w/o multi-dim Thurstone (single reward)
.785
.822
− 1.3%
− 1.4%
w/o cross-domain alignment
.791
.828
− 0.7%
− 0.8%
w/o SFT cold start (RL from scratch)
.771
.808
− 2.7%
− 2.8%
A=2 attributes (sharpness, noise)
.789
.826
− 0.9%
− 1.0%
Table 3: Ablation study on key components. Avg. SRCC/PLCC across all 8 test datasets.
Figure 1: Attribute-level assessment quality. Left: SRCC of each attribute across datasets. Right: Learned attribute weights across training epochs, showing that the model adaptively adjusts attribute importance during training.
Figure 2: Training convergence comparison. Left: Average reward vs. training steps. Right: Prediction standard deviation vs. training steps. Multi-granularity rewards achieve faster and more stable convergence.
Figure 3: Cross-domain performance analysis. The bars show SRCC performance when transferring from synthetic distortion training to authentic (Auth.) and AIGC test domains. MG-IQA consistently reduces the cross-domain performance gap.
Figure 4: Effect of group size K on average SRCC. MG-IQA shows lower sensitivity to K compared to single-score RL2R.
Figure 5: Qualitative examples of multi-granularity reasoning evolution during training. The model progressively develops more detailed and nuanced attribute-level quality analysis.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Sharpness
Color
Noise
Composition
Overall
Q-Align
.712
.689
.701
.654
.789
VQ-R1
–
–
–
–
.812
MG-IQA
.841
.798
.823
.762
.830
Appendix
Table 5: Per-attribute SRCC on KADID-10k test set.