# The Unanticipated Asymmetry Between Perceptual Optimization and Assessment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.20878 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20878/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.1556/) (2014)
- [Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.14030/) (2021)
- [The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metric](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.03924/) (2018)
- [ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0575/) (2014)
- [DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07193/) (2023)
- [A ConvNet for the 2020s](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.03545/) (2022)
- [Taming Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09841/) (2020)
- [Perceptual Losses for Real-Time Style Transfer and Super-Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.08155/) (2016)
- [Photo-Realistic Single Image Super-Resolution Using a Generative Adversarial Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.04802/) (2016)
- [SwinIR: Image Restoration Using Swin Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.10257/) (2021)
- [ESRGAN: Enhanced Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.00219/) (2018)
- [Image Super-Resolution Using Deep Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1501.00092/) (2014)
- [Visual Autoregressive Modeling: Scalable Image Generation via Next-Scale Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02905/) (2024)
- [FLUX.1 Kontext: Flow Matching for In-Context Image Generation and Editing in Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15742/) (2025)
- [Real-ESRGAN: Training Real-World Blind Super-Resolution with Pure Synthetic Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.10833/) (2021)
- [Image Quality Assessment: Unifying Structure and Texture Similarity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07728/) (2020)
- [Autoregressive Model Beats Diffusion: Llama for Scalable Image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06525/) (2024)
- [Adversarial Diffusion Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17042/) (2023)
- [Which Training Methods for GANs do actually Converge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.04406/) (2018)
- [Flow-GRPO: Training Flow Matching Models via Online RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05470/) (2025)
- [The Perception-Distortion Tradeoff](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.06077/) (2017)
- [MANIQA: Multi-dimension Attention Network for No-Reference Image Quality Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.08958/) (2022)
- [KonIQ-10k: An ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.06180/) (2019)
- [SeeSR: Towards Semantics-Aware Real-World Image Super-Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16518/) (2023)
- [Blind Image Quality Assessment via Vision-Language Correspondence: A Multitask Learning Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.14968/) (2023)
- [The relativistic discriminator: a key element missing from standard GAN](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.00734/) (2018)
- [TOPIQ: A Top-down Approach from Semantics to Distortions for Image Quality Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03060/) (2023)
- [Learning a No-Reference Quality Metric for Single-Image Super-Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.05890/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Perceptual optimization is primarily driven by the fidelity objective, which enforces both semantic consistency and overall visual realism, while the adversarial objective provides complementary refinement by enhancing perceptual sharpness and fine-grained detail. Despite their central role, the correlation between their effectiveness as optimization objectives and their capability as image quality assessment (IQA) metrics remains underexplored. In this work, we conduct a systematic analysis and reveal an unanticipated asymmetry between perceptual optimization and assessment: fidelity metrics that excel in IQA are not necessarily effective for perceptual optimization, with this misalignment emerging more distinctly under adversarial training. In addition, while discriminators effectively suppress artifacts during optimization, their learned representations offer only limited benefits when reused as backbone initializations for IQA models. Beyond this asymmetry, our findings further demonstrate that discriminator design plays a decisive role in shaping optimization, with patch-level and convolutional architectures providing more faithful detail reconstruction than vanilla or Transformer-based alternatives. These insights advance the understanding of loss function design and its connection to IQA transferability, paving the way for more principled approaches to perceptual optimization.