PreprintCited by 27Image and Video Quality AssessmentDigital Media Forensic DetectionImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

AIGCOIQA2024: Perceptual Quality Assessment of AI Generated Omnidirectional Images

Open access
Yang, Liu, Duan, Huiyu, Teng, Long, Zhu, Yucheng, Liu, Xiaohong, Hu, Menghan, Min, Xiongkuo, Zhai, Guangtao +1 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

In recent years, the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) has attracted widespread attention. Among the AIGC, AI generated omnidirectional images hold significant potential for Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) applications, hence omnidirectional AIGC techniques have also been widely studied. AI-generated omnidirectional images exhibit unique distortions compared to natural omnidirectional images, however, there is no dedicated Image Quality Assessment (IQA) criteria for assessing them. This study addresses this gap by establishing a large-scale AI generated omnidirectional image IQA database named AIGCOIQA2024 and constructing a comprehensive benchmark. We first generate 300 omnidirectional images based on 5 AIGC models utilizing 25 text prompts. A subjective IQA experiment is conducted subsequently to assess human visual preferences from three perspectives including quality, comfortability, and correspondence. Finally, we conduct a benchmark experiment to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art IQA models on our database. The database will be released to facilitate future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.01024

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evaluation criteria were grounded in expert feedback and existing research on quality assessment for AI-generated content.

    “Grounded in expert feedback and existing research on quality assessment for AI-generated content [40, 54, 58, 61], the criteria focused on aspects such as realism, visual quality, level of detail, and creative impact”

    From Understanding Creative Potential and Use Cases of AI-Generated Environments for Virtual Film Productions: Insights from Industry Professionals (2025) · cites this paper as [61]

    Section 2.2, Subjective Experiment Setup, draws on earlier AI-generated-image quality research and proposes evaluation dimensions of quality, comfortability, and text-image correspondence. It reports ratings from 20 participants, but does not identify expert feedback as a basis for the criteria; nor does it establish level of detail or creative impact as evaluation dimensions. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [1]1. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio, "Generative adversarial nets," in Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2014, vol. 27.
  2. [3]3. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer, "High-resolution im- age synthesis with latent diffusion models," in Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 10684-10695.
  3. [9]9. Zhaoxi Chen, Guangcong Wang, and Ziwei Liu, "Text2light: Zero-shot text-driven hdr panorama gener- ation," ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 41, no. 6, nov 2022.
  4. [27]27. Wufeng Xue, Lei Zhang, and Xuanqin Mou, "Learn- ing without human scores for blind image quality as- sessment," Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion.
  5. [34]34. Le Kang, Peng Ye, Yi Li, and David Doermann, "Con- volutional neural networks for no-reference image qual- ity assessment," in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, L., Duan, H., Teng, L., Zhu, Y., Liu, X., Hu, M., Min, X., Zhai, G., & Callet, P. L.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • East China Normal University (CN)
  • Université de Nantes (FR)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
1239-1245
ISSN
1522-4880 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402915487
Cited by
27
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5
FWCI
5.57
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
AI-generated content, omnidirectional images, image quality assessment, perceptual quality, benchmark, virtual reality, augmented reality, subjective quality assessment, image distortion, large-scale image databases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review