Image Aesthetics Assessment Using Graph Attention Network
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
Aspect ratio and spatial layout are two of the principal factors influencing the aesthetic value of a photograph. However, incorporating these into the traditional convolution-based frameworks for the task of image aesthetics assessment is problematic. The aspect ratio of the photographs gets distorted while they are resized/cropped to a fixed dimension to facilitate training batch sampling. On the other hand, the convolutional filters process information locally and are limited in their ability to model the global spatial layout of a photograph. In this work, we present a two-stage framework based on graph neural networks and address both these problems jointly. First, we propose a feature-graph representation in which the input image is modelled as a graph, maintaining its original aspect ratio and resolution. Second, we propose a graph neural network architecture that takes this feature-graph and captures the semantic relationship between different regions of the input image using visual attention. Our experiments show that the proposed framework advances the state-of-the-art results in aesthetic score regression on the Aesthetic Visual Analysis (AVA) benchmark. Our code is publicly available for comparisons and further explorations. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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