Modeling Beyond MOS: Quality Assessment Models Must Integrate Context, Reasoning, and Multimodality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19696v1
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 08:52:02 GMT
• Title: Modeling Beyond MOS: Quality Assessment Models Must Integrate Context, Reasoning, and Multimodality
• Authors: Mohamed Amine Kerkouri, Marouane Tliba, Aladine Chetouani, Nour Aburaed, Alessandro Bruno,
• Abstract summary: Mean Opinion Score (MOS) is no longer sufficient as the sole supervisory signal for multimedia quality assessment models.<n>By reframing quality assessment as a contextual, explainable, and multimodal modeling task, we aim to catalyze a shift toward more robust, human-aligned, and trustworthy evaluation systems.
• Score: 45.34252727738116
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues that Mean Opinion Score (MOS), while historically foundational, is no longer sufficient as the sole supervisory signal for multimedia quality assessment models. MOS reduces rich, context-sensitive human judgments to a single scalar, obscuring semantic failures, user intent, and the rationale behind quality decisions. We contend that modern quality assessment models must integrate three interdependent capabilities: (1) context-awareness, to adapt evaluations to task-specific goals and viewing conditions; (2) reasoning, to produce interpretable, evidence-grounded justifications for quality judgments; and (3) multimodality, to align perceptual and semantic cues using vision-language models. We critique the limitations of current MOS-centric benchmarks and propose a roadmap for reform: richer datasets with contextual metadata and expert rationales, and new evaluation metrics that assess semantic alignment, reasoning fidelity, and contextual sensitivity. By reframing quality assessment as a contextual, explainable, and multimodal modeling task, we aim to catalyze a shift toward more robust, human-aligned, and trustworthy evaluation systems.

Related papers

• MERRY: Semantically Decoupled Evaluation of Multimodal Emotional and Role Consistencies of Role-Playing Agents [41.829135334587626]
  MERRY is a semantically decoupled evaluation framework for assessing Multimodal Emotional and Role consistencies of Role-playing agents.<n>We transform the traditional subjective scoring approach into a novel bidirectional-evidence-finding task.<n>We conduct extensive evaluations based on MERRY.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T02:53:58Z)
• Automated Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) Scoring [5.277507079014855]
  We show that state-of-the-art rationale-based fine-tuning methods struggle with the abstract, context-dependent nature of Mini-Interviews.<n>We introduce a multi-agent prompting framework that breaks down the evaluation process into transcript refinement and criterion-specific scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T17:20:25Z)
• From Scores to Preferences: Redefining MOS Benchmarking for Speech Quality Reward Modeling [66.22134521383909]
  We introduce a unified benchmark that reformulates diverse MOS datasets into a preference-comparison setting.<n>Building on MOS-RMBench, we systematically construct and evaluate three paradigms for reward modeling.<n>Our experiments reveal three key findings: (1) scalar models achieve the strongest overall performance, consistently exceeding 74% accuracy; (2) most models perform considerably worse on synthetic speech than on human speech; and (3) all models struggle on pairs with very small MOS differences.<n> Experimental results show that the MOS-aware GRM significantly improves fine-grained quality discrimination and narrows the gap with scalar models on the most challenging cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T10:27:51Z)
• VIVA+: Human-Centered Situational Decision-Making [9.67738226553979]
  We introduce VIVA+, a benchmark for evaluating the reasoning and decision-making of MLLMs in human-centered situations.<n>Vila+ consists of 1,317 real-world situations paired with 6,373 multiple-choice questions, targeting three core abilities for decision-making.<n>We evaluate the latest commercial and open-source models on VIVA+, where we reveal distinct performance patterns and highlight significant challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T07:13:11Z)
• When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs [8.575522204707958]
  Large language models (LLMs) grow in capability and autonomy, evaluating their outputs-especially in open-ended and complex tasks-has become a critical bottleneck.<n>A new paradigm is emerging: using AI agents as the evaluators themselves.<n>In this review, we define the agent-as-a-judge concept, trace its evolution from single-model judges to dynamic multi-agent debate frameworks, and critically examine their strengths and shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T01:42:25Z)
• Seeing is Believing, but How Much? A Comprehensive Analysis of Verbalized Calibration in Vision-Language Models [15.158475816860427]
  Uncertainty is essential for assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of modern AI systems.<n> verbalized uncertainty, where models express their confidence through natural language, has emerged as a lightweight and interpretable solution.<n>However, its effectiveness in vision-language models (VLMs) remains insufficiently studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T17:16:36Z)
• Evaluating and Advancing Multimodal Large Language Models in Ability Lens [30.083110119139793]
  We introduce textbfAbilityLens, a unified benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs across six key perception abilities. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of current models, highlighting stability patterns and revealing a notable performance gap between open-source and closed-source models. We also design a simple ability-specific model merging method that combines the best ability checkpoint from early training stages, effectively mitigating performance decline due to ability conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T04:41:20Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Multi-Modal Prompt Learning on Blind Image Quality Assessment [65.0676908930946]
  Image Quality Assessment (IQA) models benefit significantly from semantic information, which allows them to treat different types of objects distinctly. Traditional methods, hindered by a lack of sufficiently annotated data, have employed the CLIP image-text pretraining model as their backbone to gain semantic awareness. Recent approaches have attempted to address this mismatch using prompt technology, but these solutions have shortcomings. This paper introduces an innovative multi-modal prompt-based methodology for IQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T11:45:32Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Do Vision-and-Language Transformers Learn Grounded Predicate-Noun Dependencies? [0.06299766708197882]
  We create a new task targeted at evaluating understanding of predicate-noun dependencies in a controlled setup. We evaluate a range of state-of-the-art models and find that their performance on the task varies considerably. This study highlights that targeted and controlled evaluations are a crucial step for a precise and rigorous test of the multimodal knowledge of vision-and-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T16:07:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.