Papers › Embodied Image Quality Assessment for Robotic Intelligence

Embodied Image Quality Assessment for Robotic Intelligence

25 Dec 2024arXiv:2412.18774archive 2025-07-28

Jianbo Zhang, Chunyi Li, Liang Yuan, Guoquan Zheng, Jie Hao, Guangtao Zhai

Image quality assessment (IQA) of user-generated content (UGC) is a critical technique for human quality of experience (QoE). However, for robot-generated content (RGC), will its image quality be consistent with the Moravec paradox and counter to human common sense? Human subjective scoring is more based on the attractiveness of the image. Embodied agent are required to interact and perceive in the environment, and finally perform specific tasks. Visual images as inputs directly influence downstream tasks. In this paper, we first propose an embodied image quality assessment (EIQA) frameworks. We establish assessment metrics for input images based on the downstream tasks of robot. In addition, we construct an Embodied Preference Database (EPD) containing 5,000 reference and distorted image annotations. The performance of mainstream IQA algorithms on EPD dataset is finally verified. The experiments demonstrate that quality assessment of embodied images is different from that of humans. We sincerely hope that the EPD can contribute to the development of embodied AI by focusing on image quality assessment. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/Jianbo-maker/EPD_benchmark.

PaperPDFCode

Code

jianbo-maker/epd_benchmark officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Common Sense ReasoningImage Quality Assessment

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections