Subjective and Objective Visual Quality Assessment of Textured 3D Meshes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective visual quality assessment of 3D models is a fundamental issue in computer graphics. Quality assessment metrics may allow a wide range of processes to be guided and evaluated, such as level of detail creation, compression, filtering, and so on. Most computer graphics assets are composed of geometric surfaces on which several texture images can be mapped to make the rendering more realistic. While some quality assessment metrics exist for geometric surfaces, almost no research has been conducted on the evaluation of texture-mapped 3D models. In this context, we present a new subjective study to evaluate the perceptual quality of textured meshes, based on a paired comparison protocol. We introduce both texture and geometry distortions on a set of 5 reference models to produce a database of 136 distorted models, evaluated using two rendering protocols. Based on analysis of the results, we propose two new metrics for visual quality assessment of textured mesh, as optimized linear combinations of accurate geometry and texture quality measurements. These proposed perceptual metrics outperform their counterparts in terms of correlation with human opinion. The database, along with the associated subjective scores, will be made publicly available online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it