Global-Local Image Perceptual Score (GLIPS): Evaluating Photorealistic Quality of AI-Generated Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the Global-Local Image Perceptual Score (GLIPS), an image metric designed to assess the photorealistic image quality of AI-generated images with a high degree of alignment to human visual perception. Traditional metrics such as FID and KID scores do not align closely with human evaluations. The proposed metric incorporates advanced transformer-based attention mechanisms to assess local similarity and Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) to evaluate global distributional similarity. To evaluate the performance of GLIPS, we conducted a human study on photorealistic image quality. Comprehensive tests across various generative models demonstrate that GLIPS consistently outperforms existing metrics like FID, SSIM, and MS-SSIM in terms of correlation with human scores. Additionally, we introduce the Interpolative Binning Scale (IBS), a refined scaling method that enhances the interpretability of metric scores by aligning them more closely with human evaluative standards. The proposed metric and scaling approach not only provide more reliable assessments of AI-generated images but also suggest pathways for future enhancements in image generation technologies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".