Writing study: Fine-grained Image Aesthetic Assessment: Learning Discriminative Scores from Relative Ranks

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Zhichao Yang, Jianjie Wang, Zhixianhe Zhang, Pangu Xie, Xiangfei Sheng, Pengfei Chen, Leida Li · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Datasets, benchmarks & measurement (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.13 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

5 / 5

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.91%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.09%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 1.26 pp.	11.45%
2. Related Work	3	≈ 0.67 pp.	6.09%
3. FGAesthetics	3	≈ 1.38 pp.	12.55%
4. FGAesQ	5	≈ 1.56 pp.	14.18%
5. Experiments	6	≈ 2.02 pp.	18.36%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.23 pp.	2.09%
7. Acknowledgments	9	≈ 0.08 pp.	0.73%
References	9	≈ 2.87 pp.	26.09%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Table 1 · p. 2
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 7
• Table 4 · p. 8
• Table 5 · p. 8
• Figure 5 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 5 physical pages; 6 detected figures and 3 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 4.93 page-equivalents, 6 figure labels and 3 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.02 pp.
8. FGAesthetics	1	≈ 2.6 pp.
9. FGAesQ	3	≈ 0.68 pp.
10. Additional Visual Examples	4	≈ 0.23 pp.
11. Limitations	4	≈ 1.4 pp.

• Table 6 · p. 1
• Figure 6 · p. 1
• Figure 7 · p. 2
• Figure 8 · p. 2
• Figure 9 · p. 2
• Table 7 · p. 3
• Table 8 · p. 3
• Figure 10 · p. 4
• Figure 11 · p. 5

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Uses the practical choice between nearly identical photographs to distinguish fine-grained ranking from independent coarse aesthetic scores.

2. Argument sequence

   Describes collection, series refinement, rank calibration and dataset statistics before introducing the scoring model.

3. Evidence and verification

   Table 1 compares annotation units and label types; later tables report pair- and series-level performance, parameter counts, coarse-task retention and cross-dataset transfer.

Problem, claim and contribution

Uses the practical choice between nearly identical photographs to distinguish fine-grained ranking from independent coarse aesthetic scores.

Figure 1 and Introduction, pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Describes collection, series refinement, rank calibration and dataset statistics before introducing the scoring model.

Sections 3–4, pp. 3–6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 2 draws a three-stage annotation pipeline with real example series, discarded examples, human checks and pairwise rank calibration.

Figure 2, p. 3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Table 1 compares annotation units and label types; later tables report pair- and series-level performance, parameter counts, coarse-task retention and cross-dataset transfer.

Tables 1–4, pp. 2, 7–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement provides annotation-platform images and prompting details alongside source distributions, making the data work reproducible.

Supplement Sections 8.1–8.4 and Figures 6–9, pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The dataset and method receive distinct names and sections, helping readers distinguish benchmark contribution from model contribution.

Sections 3–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For a new benchmark, illustrate the annotation unit, rejection rules and evaluation levels before discussing a new model's score.

Boundary: Fine-grained aesthetic preference remains conditioned on the collected sources and annotation protocol; transfer and human disagreement deserve explicit limits.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan throughout Sections 1–6, PDF pp. 1–8; acknowledgments/references pp. 9–11: abstract/framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical verification.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-oriented supplement scan: Supplement Sections 8–11, pp. 1–5: source distribution, refinement/calibration, annotation interfaces, prompts, OOD ablations and limitations. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 2

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVF open-access CVPR 2026 accepted-paper PDF · 11 pages
• Official CVF supplementary PDF · 5 pages