PreprintCited by 49Image and Video Quality AssessmentDigital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Exploring AIGC Video Quality: A Focus on Visual Harmony, Video-Text Consistency and Domain Distribution Gap

Open access
Qu, Bowen, Liang, Xiaoyu, Sun, Shangkun, Gao, Wei·2024·arXiv

Abstract

The recent advancements in Text-to-Video Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) have been remarkable. Compared with traditional videos, the assessment of AIGC videos encounters various challenges: visual inconsistency that defy common sense, discrepancies between content and the textual prompt, and distribution gap between various generative models, etc. Target at these challenges, in this work, we categorize the assessment of AIGC video quality into three dimensions: visual harmony, video-text consistency, and domain distribution gap. For each dimension, we design specific modules to provide a comprehensive quality assessment of AIGC videos. Furthermore, our research identifies significant variations in visual quality, fluidity, and style among videos generated by different text-to-video models. Predicting the source generative model can make the AIGC video features more discriminative, which enhances the quality assessment performance. The proposed method was used in the third-place winner of the NTIRE 2024 Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Content - Track 2 Video, demonstrating its effectiveness. Code will be available at https://github.com/Coobiw/TriVQA.

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.2404.13573

Cites

49 of 49 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?

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: 2

  1. [16]16. Jari Korhonen. Two-level approach for no-reference con- sumer video quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Im- age Processing, 28(12):5923-5938, 2019. 2
  2. [32]32. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. In ICML, pages 8748-8763. PMLR, 2021. 2, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qu, B., Liang, X., Sun, S., & Gao, W.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
6652-6660
OpenAlex
W4402904268
Cited by
44
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12
FWCI
9.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
AI-generated content, text-to-video generation, video quality assessment, visual harmony

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