In this paper, we present an overview of the NTIRE 2026 challenge on the 3rd Restore Any Image Model in the Wild, specifically focusing on Track 1: Professional Image Quality Assessment. Conventional Image Quality Assessment (IQA) typically relies on scalar scores. By compressing complex visual characteristics into a single number, these methods fundamentally struggle to distinguish subtle differences among uniformly high-quality images. Furthermore, they fail to articulate why one image is superior, lacking the reasoning capabilities required to provide guidance for vision tasks. To bridge this gap, recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) offer a promising paradigm. Inspired by this potential, our challenge establishes a novel benchmark exploring the ability of MLLMs to mimic human expert cognition in evaluating high-quality image pairs. Participants were tasked with overcoming critical bottlenecks in professional scenarios, centering on two primary objectives: (1) Comparative Quality Selection: reliably identifying the visually superior image within a high-quality pair; and (2) Interpretative Reasoning: generating grounded, expert-level explanations that detail the rationale behind the selection. In total, the challenge attracted nearly 200 registrations and over 2,500 submissions. The top-performing methods significantly advanced the state of the art in professional IQA. The challenge dataset is available at https://github.com/narthchin/RAIM-PIQA, and the official homepage is accessible at https://www.codabench.org/competitions/12789/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example of pairwise comparison under the MCQ pattern, with annotations on the rationales behind the selection of the portrait part of the curated dataset.
Figure 2: An example of pairwise comparison under the MCQ pattern, with annotations on the rationales behind the selection of the scenery part of the curated dataset.
Figure 3: The structured prompt utilized for the LLM-as-a-Judge protocol to evaluate semantic alignment and reasoning quality.
Rank
Team
Final Award Score
Phase 2 Score
Phase 3 Score
1
IH-VQA
0.7305
0.6943
0.7667
2
VCIP Pi Group
0.7253
0.6826
0.7679
3
I 2 Group
0.7040
0.6490
0.7590
4
fugui
0.6939
0.6640
0.7237
5
LZ
0.6823
0.6149
0.7497
6
ongaku
0.6641
0.6056
0.7227
Table 1: Award Ranking for the Grand Prize on RAIM Track 1 after organizer-side verification. The final ranking is determined from the scores on Phase 2 and Phase 3.
Rank
Team
Phase 3 Score
LLM Score
Accuracy
1
VCIP Pi Group
0.7679
0.5535
0.6733
2
IH-VQA
0.7667
0.4459
0.7129
3
I 2 Group
0.7590
0.4557
0.7030
4
LZ
0.7497
0.4008
0.7228
5
fugui
0.7237
0.4137
0.6832
6
ongaku
0.7227
0.4113
0.6832
Table 2: Leaderboard of the Phase 3, ranked by Phase 3 Score.
Rank
Team
Phase 2 Score
Accuracy
Conditioned NLG
1
IH-VQA
0.6943
0.9118
0.2050
2
VCIP Pi Group
0.6826
0.9314
0.1098
3
fugui
0.6640
0.8824
0.1751
4
I 2 Group
0.6490
0.8627
0.1743
5
LZ
0.6149
0.8235
0.1557
6
ongaku
0.6056
0.8039
0.1776
Table 3: Leaderboard of the Phase 2, ranked by Phase 2 Score.
Figure 4: Visual comparison of generated rationales and selections with ground-truth annotations and selections on the portrait part of the curated test set.
Figure 5: Visual comparison of generated rationales and selections with ground-truth annotations and selections on the scenery part of the curated test set.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Overview of the proposed dualbranch framework of IH-VQA for pairwise image quality assessment. The Answer Model (AM) performs robust preference prediction through contentaware branching and model fusion, while the Thinking Model (TM) generates expertstyle textual rationales by integrating prompt templates, qualityrelated features, and Answer Model outputs. The final output includes both the preferred image decision and its corresponding explanation.
Figure 7: Data construction pipeline of VCIP Group.
Figure 8: Agent framework of VCIP Group.
Figure 9: Training pipeline of VCIP Group
Figure 10: Overview of the proposed I 2 Group framework for NTIRE 2026 RAIM Track 1. Official merged detailed images are first split into paired single-view crops and reformatted into four training sets. A Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct backbone is then progressively optimized through five stages (SFT -¿ GRPO -¿ GRPO Again -¿ SFT Refresh -¿ Final GRPO). Finally, three complementary expert checkpoints selected from Stages 1, 2, and 5 are ensembled by majority voting for robust prediction.
Stage
Training Type
Validation Accuracy
Selected as Expert
Stage 1
SFT (LoRA)
0.74 ( 75/102 )
Yes, MOE_3
Stage 2
GRPO
0.77 ( 79/102 )
Yes, MOE_1
Stage 3
GRPO Again
0.79 ( 81/102 )
No
Stage 4
SFT Refresh (LoRA)
0.81 ( 83/102 )
No
Stage 5
Final GRPO
0.84 ( 86/102 )
Yes, MOE_2
Ensemble
Majority Voting
0.86 ( 88/102 )
Final System
Appendix
Table 4: Stage-wise Validation Performance of I 2 Group
Pairwise image quality assessment (IQA) in professional photography requires a model not only to identify the preferred image between two candidates, but also to provide convincing and image-grounded reasoning. In the NTIRE 2026 RAIM challenge, this requirement is further emphasized by jointly evaluating preference prediction and rationale generation. To address this task, we propose iDiff, an Interpretable Difference-aware framework for pairwise image quality assessment. Our method adopts a dual-branch design consisting of an Answer Model and a Thinking Model. The Answer Model performs robust preference prediction by explicitly decomposing each sample into left/right global and local views, followed by content-aware specialization for person and scene images and ensemble-based aggregation across backbones. The Thinking Model focuses on rationale generation and is progressively enhanced with expert-style templates, multi-source quality features, and answer-aware supervision conditioned on the Answer Model prediction. In this way, iDiff jointly models discriminative decision making and structured explanation, improving both robustness and interpretability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework on both accuracy and reasoning-quality metrics. Our method achieved first place in the NTIRE 2026 RAIM challenge, showing the effectiveness of integrating explicit difference modeling with structured multimodal reasoning for pairwise IQA.
Image Quality Assessment (IQA) in open-world environments remains challenging due to limited generalization and interpretability. Recent approaches based on multimodal large language models (MLLMs) introduce textual reasoning for quality prediction, yet their judgments rely heavily on semantically biased internal representations, making them insensitive to low-level perceptual degradations. We propose IQA-T1, a tool-based visual evidence reasoning framework that augments MLLM reasoning with explicit perceptual observations. During inference, the model autonomously invokes specialized analysis tools to generate structured visual evidence, such as noise residual maps, gradient statistics, and frequency spectra, which are progressively integrated into the reasoning process. To support this paradigm, we construct Q-Tool, a dataset containing 11k multimodal reasoning chains grounded in tool-generated evidence. Extensive experiments on seven IQA benchmarks show that IQA-T1 achieves the best overall performance across datasets while producing interpretable and evidence-grounded quality assessments. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/zibuyu-02/IQA-T1.
Jinjian Wu, Jiaqi Tang, Wei Wei +5
School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong potential for image quality assessment (IQA) by improving consistency between quality ratings and their underlying reasoning. However, most approaches supervise reasoning through human-provided ratings and rarely examine whether it faithfully reflects image quality. Rating accuracy alone does not ensure faithful reasoning; a shared reward also obscures supervision sources and may reinforce unfaithful reasoning when a correct rating occurs by chance. To improve the faithfulness and reliability of blind IQA, we aim to (1) decouple credit assignment for reasoning and rating and (2) provide verifiable supervision for faithful reasoning. We introduce MR-IQA-2, an actor-editor-judge framework that operationalizes reasoning-editing-reflection. The actor generates quality reasoning for an input image, and the editor revises the image according to the identified quality factors. A frozen judge compares the original and edited images and provides reflective supervision for the actor's reasoning. MR-IQA-2 further uses fine-grained credit assignment to decouple reasoning and rating supervision. Judge feedback supervises reasoning, whereas human ratings supervise the predicted rating. Masked token-specific updates distinguish these signals while preserving the causal relation from reasoning to rating. Across IQA benchmarks, MR-IQA-2 achieves competitive rating alignment with humans. Visual reflection also enables richer and more faithful visual understanding beyond rating, which may inform image-quality optimization and related downstream tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/RobinY99/MR-IQA-2.