An image's original dimensions, aspect ratio, and composition provide important cues that can affect its technical and aesthetic quality. Image assessment methods use resizing, cropping, padding, or patch sampling to accommodate different input sizes. However, these operations can alter or obscure original geometric and compositional cues. Existing assessment models also encode rich multi-level visual evidence that can be further extracted and exploited to improve existing models. This motivates us to combine visual evidence with original-image geometry for score refinement without changing the original scoring pipelines. In this paper, we introduce MetaRefine, a metadata-aware score refinement architecture whose lightweight residual heads predict score corrections from geometry, multi-level visual features, and the frozen model's original score. Across 100 configurations on 21 datasets, MetaRefine improves PLCC in 88 configurations and SRCC in 85, with average relative gains of 7.55% and 7.10%, respectively. It reduces MAE in 90 configurations and RMSE in 89, with average relative reductions of 23.27% and 21.93%, respectively. The median parameter overhead is only 1.11%. MetaRefine can further improve state-of-the-art (SOTA) assessment models on multiple benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Refinement across image geometries and input pipelines. (A) Original and refined MAE across aspect-ratio bins for six assessment models [ 52 , 2 , 16 , 8 , 18 ] . (B) Illustrative score corrections under the models’ original cropping, resizing, padding, patch sampling, and native-resolution inputs [ 52 , 44 , 24 , 16 , 21 ] . Red/green: original/refined scores. Blue parentheses: ground truth.
Figure 3: Overview of MetaRefine. Metadata-aware score refinement using an existing frozen assessment model, with the residual head detailed at the bottom right. Only the residual heads are optimized.
Figure 4: Visual examples of score refinement across datasets. Original (red), MetaRefine (green), and GT (blue).
Table 1: Complete score-refinement results, part 1 of 2 (52 configurations). Base: frozen baseline assessment model. Ref.: the baseline model after MetaRefine refinement. Gain is the relative change from Base to Ref., computed by dividing the increase in SRCC/PLCC or the reduction in MAE/RMSE by the absolute Base value and expressing the result as a percentage. Params ↑ : added trainable parameters relative to the complete frozen baseline (%). Darker green / red indicates larger relative improvement/decline, respectively, with color intensity capped at a 30% change. Improvements correspond to higher SRCC/PLCC or lower MAE/RMSE. Rows are sorted by refined SRCC within each dataset. Test/Total gives the default evaluation count and total sample count used in that dataset protocol. Data partitions and evaluation protocols are detailed in Appendices C.2 - C.4 .
SRCC ↑
PLCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Assessment model
Base
Ref.
Gain
Base
Ref.
Gain
Base
Ref.
Gain
Base
Ref.
Gain
Params ↑
AVA (IAA) [ 39 ] - Test/Total: 19,929 / 255,508
FGAesQ [ 63 ]
0.8720
0.8838
+1.35%
0.8676
0.8791
+1.32%
0.2885
0.2719
+5.75%
0.3785
0.3593
+5.07%
0.53%
ELTA [ 36 ]
0.8420
0.8569
+1.77%
0.8437
0.8581
+1.71%
0.3110
0.2959
+4.87%
0.4037
0.3864
+4.27%
0.62%
QPT V2 (IAA) r [ 58 ]
0.8551
0.8555
+0.05%
0.8649
0.8658
+0.11%
0.0307
0.0299
+2.54%
0.0389
0.0381
+2.03%
1.08%
ArtiMuse [ 5 ]
0.8265
0.8261
-0.05%
0.8250
0.8249
-0.01%
0.3265
0.3263
+0.07%
0.4249
0.4249
-0.00%
0.01%
Table 2: Complete score-refinement results, part 2 of 2 (48 configurations). Base: frozen baseline assessment model. Ref.: the baseline model after MetaRefine refinement. Gain is the relative change from Base to Ref., computed by dividing the increase in SRCC/PLCC or the reduction in MAE/RMSE by the absolute Base value and expressing the result as a percentage. Params ↑ : added trainable parameters relative to the complete frozen baseline (%). Darker green / red indicates larger relative improvement/decline, respectively, with color intensity capped at a 30% change. Improvements correspond to higher SRCC/PLCC or lower MAE/RMSE. Rows are sorted by refined SRCC within each dataset. Test/Total gives the default evaluation count and total sample count used in that dataset protocol. Data partitions and evaluation protocols are detailed in Appendices C.2 - C.4 .
Variant
PLCC
SRCC
MAE
RMSE
Reference Configuration
Full
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
(A) Multi-Level Visual Features
w/o visual features
-3.638%
-3.889%
-55.656%
-48.445%
Final features only
-0.960%
-1.265%
-5.371%
-5.436%
w/o final features
-0.285%
+0.267%
-7.129%
-6.751%
Table 3: Ablation study result. Full denotes the complete MetaRefine configuration. Relative improvements over Full are averaged equally. Positive values indicate higher correlation or lower error. Red / green denotes negative/positive changes.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Train
Val.
Eval.
Configuration-specific settings
KonIQ-10k
7,058
1,000
2,015
QCN and MANIQA: 8,058 training images, MANIQA uses an alternative author list.
Default: whole images and cropped regions, DP-IQA and PaQ-2-PiQ: whole images only, 30,270/7,714/1,826.
AVA
235,579
–
19,929
AesCLIP: exposure-separated 248,259/–/7,249.
Appendix
Table S1 : Data partitions for the paired score-refinement comparisons. Counts denote samples in the designated refinement training, validation, and evaluation partitions, including whole images and cropped regions for FLIVE. A dash means no separate validation partition is listed. Configuration-specific exceptions appear in the last column, and model reproduction and adaptation settings are detailed in Appendix C.3 .
Variant
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↑
RMSE ↑
(A) Multi-Level Visual Features
w/o visual features
-3.638% (83)
-3.889% (80)
-55.656% (82)
-48.445% (81)
Final features only
-0.960% (75)
-1.265% (73)
-5.371% (73)
-5.436% (77)
w/o final features
-0.285% (63)
+0.267% (61)
-7.129% (58)
-6.751% (61)
w/o early features
-0.261% (58)
-0.288% (57)
-0.097% (60)
-0.177% (61)
w/o middle features
-0.309% (64)
-0.353% (62)
-0.174% (58)
-0.221% (60)
Appendix
Table S2 : Component comparisons. Three-head variants versus the complete MetaRefine configuration (Full). In the upper panels, each cell gives the equally weighted mean relative improvement over Full and the number of configurations where Full is better. The final panel reports median changes for the three original-score pathway variants. Positive values indicate higher correlation or lower error. Negative/positive changes have red/green backgrounds.
Model (Dataset)
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Variant
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
TReS (FLIVE)
Frozen assessment model
0.6398
0.6293
0.1317
0.1470
Full
0.7468 ± 0.0008
0.00%
0.7104 ± 0.0007
0.00%
0.0444 ± 0.0001
0.00%
0.0588 ± 0.0001
0.00%
Final features only
0.7221 ± 0.0006
-3.30%
0.6804 ± 0.0011
-4.21%
0.0463 ± 0.0001
-4.28%
0.0611 ± 0.0001
-3.95%
Without final features
0.7424 ± 0.0012
-0.58%
0.7079 ± 0.0015
-0.34%
0.0450 ± 0.0001
-1.29%
0.0595 ± 0.0001
-1.19%
Appendix
Table S3 : Component ablations, part 1 of 2. Full denotes MetaRefine. Single-head means ± sample standard deviations use seed group A (Appendix D.1 ). Changes compare each mean with the Full mean over the same seeds. Positive/green denotes improvement and negative/red decline.
Model (Dataset)
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Variant
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
Mean ± SD
Change
MUSIQ (SPAQ)
Frozen assessment model
0.6954
0.6984
0.1824
0.2210
Full
0.9052 ± 0.0005
0.00%
0.9005 ± 0.0005
0.00%
0.0696 ± 0.0001
0.00%
0.0893 ± 0.0002
0.00%
Final features only
0.8690 ± 0.0007
-4.01%
0.8674 ± 0.0007
-3.68%
0.0818 ± 0.0003
-17.49%
0.1060 ± 0.0003
-18.69%
Without final features
0.8921 ± 0.0003
-1.45%
0.8887 ± 0.0001
-1.31%
0.0746 ± 0.0003
-7.23%
0.0958 ± 0.0003
-7.30%
Appendix
Table S4 : Component ablations, part 2 of 2. Full denotes MetaRefine. Single-head means ± sample standard deviations use seed group A (Appendix D.1 ). Changes compare each mean with the Full mean over the same seeds. Positive/green denotes improvement and negative/red decline.
Model (Dataset)
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Added
Heads
Score
Change
Score
Change
Score
Change
Score
Change
params
TReS (FLIVE)
Base
0.6398
0.6293
0.1317
0.1470
0
1
0.7468 ± 0.0008
-0.05%
0.7104 ± 0.0007
-0.07%
0.0444 ± 0.0001
-0.08%
0.0588 ± 0.0001
-0.09%
377,153
3 (Full)
0.7472
0.00%
0.7109
0.00%
0.0444
0.00%
0.0588
0.00%
1,131,459
5
0.7471
-0.01%
0.7107
-0.02%
0.0444
0.00%
0.0588
-0.01%
1,885,765
Appendix
Table S5 : Single-head variability and residual-head ensembles. All refined rows use MetaRefine. One-head metrics are means ± sample standard deviations over five seeds. Ensembles average predictions. Changes are relative to the default three-head Full. Added parameters count residual heads. The frozen model is shared.
Variant
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Added params
TReS (FLIVE)
Linear, unbounded
0.7590 ± 0.0000
+1.70%
0.7320 ± 0.0000
+3.18%
0.1251 ± 0.0000
-181.50%
0.1377 ± 0.0000
-134.04%
5,892
MLP (32), unbounded
0.7387 ± 0.0016
-1.03%
0.7025 ± 0.0020
-0.97%
0.0454 ± 0.0001
-2.08%
0.0599 ± 0.0002
-1.84%
188,577
MLP (64), Full
0.7463 ± 0.0010
0.00%
0.7094 ± 0.0016
0.00%
0.0444 ± 0.0000
0.00%
0.0588 ± 0.0001
0.00%
377,153
MLP (128), unbounded
0.7479 ± 0.0062
+0.21%
0.7096 ± 0.0085
+0.02%
0.0442 ± 0.0005
+0.44%
0.0587 ± 0.0007
+0.23%
754,305
MLP (64–64), unbounded
0.7398 ± 0.0016
-0.87%
0.7129 ± 0.0010
+0.49%
0.0531 ± 0.0010
-19.50%
0.0686 ± 0.0011
-16.55%
381,313
Appendix
Table S6 : Residual-head architecture, part 1 of 2. Single-head means ± sample standard deviations over ten seeds. Changes are relative to the Full mean over the same seeds. Parameters are for one head. Full is the unbounded 64-unit MLP. All rows use Huber regression.
Variant
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Added params
MUSIQ (SPAQ)
Linear, unbounded
0.9007 ± 0.0000
-0.53%
0.8966 ± 0.0000
-0.46%
0.1642 ± 0.0000
-136.26%
0.1857 ± 0.0000
-107.99%
3,076
MLP (32), unbounded
0.9003 ± 0.0011
-0.57%
0.8952 ± 0.0010
-0.61%
0.0719 ± 0.0002
-3.47%
0.0926 ± 0.0003
-3.76%
98,465
MLP (64), Full
0.9054 ± 0.0004
0.00%
0.9008 ± 0.0005
0.00%
0.0695 ± 0.0002
0.00%
0.0893 ± 0.0002
0.00%
196,929
MLP (128), unbounded
0.9078 ± 0.0003
+0.26%
0.9035 ± 0.0002
+0.31%
0.0687 ± 0.0001
+1.16%
0.0880 ± 0.0001
+1.47%
393,857
MLP (64–64), unbounded
0.9054 ± 0.0005
-0.01%
0.9004 ± 0.0006
-0.04%
0.0727 ± 0.0010
-4.58%
0.0928 ± 0.0011
-3.90%
201,089
Appendix
Table S7 : Residual-head architecture, part 2 of 2. Single-head means ± sample standard deviations over ten seeds. Changes are relative to the Full mean over the same seeds. Parameters are for one head. Full is the unbounded 64-unit MLP. All rows use Huber regression.
Bound
Regression
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Full wins
0.1875
Huber
-2.25% (-0.55%)
-2.29% (-0.40%)
-54.97% (-8.01%)
-48.18% (-7.08%)
61
0.375
Huber
-1.38% (-0.30%)
-1.35% (-0.20%)
-45.27% (-3.46%)
-40.41% (-3.06%)
56
0.75
Huber
-0.65% (-0.17%)
-0.75% (-0.05%)
-31.74% (-1.02%)
-29.12% (-0.55%)
56
1.5
Huber
+0.48% (-0.03%)
+0.53% (-0.01%)
-16.76% (-0.08%)
-16.25% (-0.13%)
47
3.375
Huber
+2.04% (0.00%)
+1.73% (0.00%)
-7.13% (0.00%)
-7.51% (-0.01%)
35
Adaptive (90th percentile)
Huber
+2.02% (-0.03%)
+1.73% (-0.02%)
-7.44% (-0.06%)
-7.85% (-0.08%)
41
Appendix
Table S8 : Residual-bound comparison under the same evaluation settings as Table 3 of the main paper. Three-head results with Huber regression. Each cell gives the equally weighted mean (median) relative change from Full. Positive means improvement for every metric. Green/red shading indicates mean improvement/decline. Full wins counts configurations where Full outperforms the variant on all four metrics. Full is bold.
Variant
PLCC ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Heads
Change
95% interval
Change
95% interval
Change
95% interval
Change
95% interval
TReS (FLIVE)
10
-0.06%
[-0.00068, -0.00015]
-0.14%
[-0.00132, -0.00068]
+0.05%
[-0.00001, +0.00005]
+0.01%
[-0.00002, +0.00004]
PIAA-MIR (Swin-T) (PARA GIAA)
10
-0.01%
[-0.00019, +0.00009]
+0.01%
[-0.00018, +0.00032]
-0.04%
[-0.00005, +0.00001]
-0.04%
[-0.00006, +0.00001]
CLIP-IQA+ (L/14) (KonIQ-10k)
Appendix
Table S9 : Paired uncertainty of the head-count comparison. Ten-head relative changes and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for absolute changes from the default three-head Full, computed separately for each metric. Positive values mean improvement for every metric. Intervals use 2,000 paired resamples, without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Independent units: 1,826 reference-ID groups (TReS), 2,952 groups of images with identical pixels (PIAA-MIR), 2,015 groups of images with identical pixels (CLIP-IQA+), 2,114 groups of images with identical pixels (MUSIQ), and 19,929 images (TOPIQ).
Heads
Median ms/image ↓
Images/s ↑
Allocated MiB ↓
Reserved MiB ↓
Charm (AVA)
0
72.94
13.36
1223.93
1250.00
1
74.83
13.03
1231.95
1248.00
3
75.40
13.26
1235.96
1266.00
5
75.49
13.07
1239.96
1268.00
10
76.86
12.74
1249.97
1268.00
Appendix
Table S10 : End-to-end inference efficiency on an RTX 3090. Batch size 1, 24 timed image calls per setting. K=0 denotes the frozen model without refinement. Memory is peak PyTorch allocated/reserved memory, including the assessment model and residual heads on the GPU. Green/red cells indicate lower/higher cost or higher/lower throughput relative to each model’s K=0 . Saturation reflects the relative change.
Model (Dataset)
Train images
Fit (s)
Load (s)
Norm./GPU (s)
Cache GiB
Train feat. GiB
Extract/write 8 (s)
Charm (AVA)
235579
5.287
0.196
57.464
10.808
7.189
0.608/0.003
CLIP-IQA+ (L/14) (KonIQ-10k)
7058
0.843
1.147
0.278
0.205
0.141
0.669/0.003
NLNet (KADID-10k)
6000
0.963
0.357
0.051
0.056
0.031
6.682/0.004
MUSIQ (SPAQ)
7910
0.790
0.472
0.136
0.131
0.091
16.184/0.003
FGResQ (FGRestore)
14700
0.878
3.874
1.043
0.796
0.631
0.241/0.003
Appendix
Table S11 : Residual-head training and cache costs. One full-batch 85-update head fit, cache reading, and feature normalization with GPU transfer are timed separately. Cache size counts the stored files. Training-feature size counts only the visual feature values used by the full head, at four bytes per value.
Figure S1 : Qualitative score refinement on AVA. Original scores (red) and scores after MetaRefine (green) are shown together for each assessment model. Ground truth is blue. Scores use the AVA 1–10 scale.
Figure S2 : Qualitative score refinement on KonIQ-10k. Scores use the normalized 0–1 evaluation scale. Colors and paired-score notation follow Figure S1 .
Figure S3 : Qualitative score refinement on SPAQ. Scores use the normalized 0–1 evaluation scale. Each model retains its own original scoring pipeline. Colors and notation follow Figure S1 .
Figure S4 : Qualitative score refinement on KADID-10k. Examples span multiple contents and distortion types on the normalized 0–1 scale. Colors and notation follow Figure S1 .
Figure S5 : Qualitative score refinement on TAD66K. All scores are displayed on the normalized 0–1 scale. Charm’s original and refined scores are both divided by 10 to match this scale. Colors and notation follow Figure S1 .
Figure S6 : Qualitative score refinement on AADB. Scores use the dataset’s 0–1 scale. Colors and paired-score notation follow Figure S1 .
Image Quality Assessment (IQA) models are increasingly deployed as perceptual critics to guide generative models and image restoration. This role demands not only accurate scores but also actionable, localized feedback. However, current MLLM-based methods adopt a single-look, language-only paradigm, which departs from human evidence-seeking judgment and yields weakly grounded rationales, limiting their reliability for in-the-loop refinement. We propose Q-DeepSight, a think-with-image framework that emulates this human-like process. It performs interleaved Multimodal Chain-of-Thought (iMCoT) with tool-augmented evidence acquisition (e.g., crop-and-zoom) to explicitly determine where quality degrades and why. To train these long iMCoT trajectories via reinforcement learning, we introduce two techniques: Perceptual Curriculum Reward (PCR) to mitigate reward sparsity and Evidence Gradient Filtering (EGF) to improve credit assignment for visually-grounded reasoning. Q-DeepSight achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse benchmarks, including natural, restored, and AI-generated content. Furthermore, we demonstrate its practical value with Perceptual-in-Generation (PiG), a training-free framework where Q-DeepSight's diagnoses guide iterative image enhancement, effectively closing the loop between assessment and refinement.
Xudong Li, Jiaxi Tan, Ziyin Zhou +6
Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University, 361005, P.R. China · Beijing Institute of Technology
Portrait aesthetic assessment assigns comparable scores according to how effectively human-centered images fulfill their photographic intent. These scores support data filtering, candidate selection, and preference modeling in image-generation pipelines. Existing methods typically predict a single aesthetic score or use general-purpose MLLMs without conditioning on photographic intent. This omission matters because the same blur, pose, lighting, or framing choice may serve one photographic intent but undermine another. These models thus learn context-agnostic aesthetic priors and yield inconsistent, inaccurate, misleading judgments for portraits with distinct photographic objectives. We introduce PortraitAes-Bench, an 11K-scale benchmark that decomposes this task into intent-conditioned subjudgments. Expert-authored rubrics define nine photographic intents, six first-level dimensions, and 22 secondary criteria. They support a structured pipeline for intent routing, specialist assessment, verification, and score fusion. Following this structure, we train PortraitAes with multi-task supervision. We then improve score comparability through Gaussian score calibration and within-dimension cross-image ranking. On the standard benchmark, PortraitAes achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.924 and a Spearman rank correlation of 0.934. On the hard-case set, its Pearson correlation is 0.829 and its Spearman rank correlation is 0.795. Across both sets, PortraitAes outperforms the evaluated general-purpose MLLMs and specialized aesthetic baselines.
Junzhou Xie, Haozhong Xiong, Xunyun Tian +8
Southeast University · Qwen Business Unit of Alibaba
Evaluating image captions without references remains challenging because global embedding similarity often misses fine-grained mismatches such as hallucinated objects, missing attributes, or incorrect relations. We propose MSD-Score, a reference-free metric that models image patch and text token embeddings as von Mises-Fisher mixtures on the unit hypersphere. Instead of treating each modality as a single point, MSD-Score formulates image-text matching as a multi-scale distributional scoring problem. Semantic discrepancies are quantified via a weighted bi-directional KL divergence and combined with global similarity in a multi-scale framework for both single- and multi-candidate evaluations. Extensive experiments show that MSD-Score achieves state-of-the-art correlation with human judgments among reference-free metrics. Beyond accuracy, its probabilistic formulation yields transparent and decomposable diagnostics of local grounding errors, providing a deterministic complementary signal to holistic similarity metrics and judge-based evaluators.
Shichao Kan, Xuyang Zhang, Haojie Zhang +7
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China · School of Computer Science and Technology and the State Key Laboratory of Advanced Rail Autonomous Operation, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 101408, China +1