FoMo: Forking Moment in Generative Trajectory as a Perceptual Distance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reference-based image quality assessment (IQA) metrics aim to reflect how humans perceive the perceptual distance between a pair of images. To learn how the human visual system (HVS) operates, recent reference-based IQA metrics heavily rely on human-annotated data. Mean opinion score (MOS)-based pointwise scoring, which assigns a scalar quality value per image, is preferable for annotation but is prohibitively expensive to collect at scale and is known to be noisy due to inconsistent human judgments. As an alternative, two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) pairwise labels have gained popularity due to their reliability and efficiency, but they capture only relative comparisons between pairs. In this paper, we propose a fully automated data generation pipeline that generates pointwise perceptual distance labels between image pairs without any human annotation. Our approach exploits the generative dynamics of diffusion models as a perceptual distance proxy, where the coarse structure of an image is generated in the early timesteps and the fine details are generated in the later timesteps. Images that fork early in the generation process share only coarse structure and are perceptually far apart; images that fork late differ only in fine detail. We demonstrate that the diffusion trajectory aligns well with the human visual system, and use this forking moment, FoMo, as a reference-grounded distance label to supervise the training of a reference-based IQA metric. The pointwise labels, which support universal comparison between arbitrary image pairs, enable an information-rich training objective. Extensive experiments across diverse backbone architectures confirm the effectiveness of our generation pipeline, outperforming human-annotated datasets in multiple benchmarks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.
Builds on
31 of 44 references.
References · 31
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2020Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 21,076
- 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
- 2020Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equationscited by 9,122
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2022Flow Matching for Generative Modelingcited by 5,702
- 2023SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,356
19 more
- 2024Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,181
- 2022Flow Straight and Fast: Learning to Generate and Transfer Data with Rectified Flowcited by 3,700
- 2021SDEdit: Guided Image Synthesis and Editing with Stochastic Differential Equationscited by 1,937
- 2025DINOv3cited by 1,414
- 2020Image Quality Assessment: Unifying Structure and Texture Similaritycited by 811
- 2023Emergent Correspondence from Image Diffusioncited by 446
- 2023Simple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution imagescited by 422
- 2023DreamSim: Learning New Dimensions of Human Visual Similarity using Synthetic Datacited by 337
- 2022Perception Prioritized Training of Diffusion Modelscited by 303
- 2023Diffusion Hyperfeatures: Searching Through Time and Space for Semantic Correspondencecited by 214
- 2023On the Importance of Noise Scheduling for Diffusion Modelscited by 194
- 2020PIPAL: a Large-Scale Image Quality Assessment Dataset for Perceptual Image Restorationcited by 178
- 2018PieAPP: Perceptual Image-Error Assessment through Pairwise Preferencecited by 160
- 2019dipIQ: Blind Image Quality Assessment by Learning-to-Rank Discriminable Image Pairscited by 73
- 2023DifFIQA: Face Image Quality Assessment Using Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 23
- 2024DiffSim: Taming Diffusion Models for Evaluating Visual Similaritycited by 20
- 2020Rank-smoothed Pairwise Learning In Perceptual Quality Assessmentcited by 5
- 2024GMC-IQA: Exploiting Global-correlation and Mean-opinion Consistency for No-reference Image Quality Assessmentcited by 5
- 2025Reusing Computation in Text-to-Image Diffusion for Efficient Generation of Image Setscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Exposing flaws of generative model evaluation metrics and their unfair treatment of diffusion models
- 2025Latent Guidance in Diffusion Models for Perceptual Evaluations
- 2022Conformer and Blind Noisy Students for Improved Image Quality Assessment
- 2026Decoupling Perception and Calibration: Label-Efficient Image Quality Assessment Framework
- 2026Can We Predict The Human Preference For Text-to-Image Content Prior To Generation And Is It Even Useful To Do So?
- 2024Visual Verity in AI-Generated Imagery: Computational Metrics and Human-Centric Analysis
- 2025MILO: A Lightweight Perceptual Quality Metric for Image and Latent-Space Optimization
- 2024Towards Unified Benchmark and Models for Multi-Modal Perceptual Metrics