Downloads · 30 days
0
arman-chopikyan/generated-image-quality-assessment
generated-image-quality-assessment is a machine learning model from arman-chopikyan. Use it for the machine learning task on the model card, and read the license before you ship it in a product.
This report details the development of a model for evaluating the quality of AI-generated human images. The evaluation criteria include:
Downloads · 30 days
0
Access
Public
Updated Feb 24, 2025
Repo size
24.3 MB
Likes
0
Public
Click a slice to open those files.
.pkl22.2 MB · 95%
From the Hugging Face model README
This report details the development of a model for evaluating the quality of AI-generated human images. The evaluation criteria include:
The workflow consists of three key stages:
Due to cost and resource constraints, only 10,000 images were sourced from DiffusionDB, filtered to retain only human-related images. After removing invalid or problematic images, the final dataset size was 9,432.
A histogram-based analysis was performed to examine score distributions. The dataset exhibited high imbalance, with some quality scores appearing far more frequently than others. To address this, weighted binary cross-entropy was employed during training.
The final dataset used in this study can be accessed at:
A lightweight regression model was trained using CLIP embeddings to predict quality scores for new images.
Linear(1024, 256) → ReLU
Linear(256, 4) → Sigmoid
The trained model was tested on a held-out test dataset, and its performance was analyzed across multiple metrics.
The evaluation was conducted using multiple metrics to assess accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score across different categories.
| Metric | Overall |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.8326 |
| Precision | 0.9930 |
| Recall | 0.9576 |
| F1 Score | 0.9746 |
| Category | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 0.9633 | 0.9887 | 0.9712 | 0.9799 |
| Visual Quality | 0.9895 | 0.9990 | 0.9903 | 0.9947 |
| Artifacts | 0.8860 | 0.9895 | 0.8881 | 0.9360 |
| Final Probability | 0.9765 | 0.9948 | 0.9808 | 0.9878 |
| Metric | Overall |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.7603 |
| Precision | 0.9699 |
| Recall | 0.9466 |
| F1 Score | 0.9579 |
| Category | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 0.9151 | 0.9553 | 0.9508 | 0.9530 |
| Visual Quality | 0.9682 | 0.9883 | 0.9790 | 0.9836 |
| Artifacts | 0.8571 | 0.9607 | 0.8840 | 0.9208 |
| Final Probability | 0.9505 | 0.9755 | 0.9726 | 0.9740 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.7611 |
| Precision | 0.9741 |
| Recall | 0.9480 |
| F1 Score | 0.9606 |
| Category | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 0.9281 | 0.9652 | 0.9563 | 0.9607 |
| Visual Quality | 0.9767 | 0.9913 | 0.9848 | 0.9881 |
| Artifacts | 0.8478 | 0.9577 | 0.8750 | 0.9145 |
| Final Probability | 0.9598 | 0.9822 | 0.9757 | 0.9790 |
The model corresponding to the reported results can be accessed at:
The model achieved promising results given the imposed constraints on cost, time and computational resources. Despite these limitations, the evaluation metrics indicate that the approach is effective for assessing AI-generated human images.
By addressing these areas, the model can achieve significantly better results in real-world applications.