Modern computer graphics offers many different visual effects for processing three-dimensional scenes during rendering. The burden of calculating these graphic effects falls on the user hardware, which leads to the need to compromise between performance and image quality. In this regard, the development of systems capable of automatically assessing the quality of three-dimensional rendering and images in general becomes relevant. The relevance of this topic is expressed in two directions. First, the ability to predict user reactions will allow for more accurate customization of graphic applications. Second, understanding preferences can help in optimizing 3D scenes by identifying visual effects that can be disabled. In a broader sense, this also poses the challenge of optimally managing the rendering process so that it becomes possible to maximize the use of available hardware capabilities. Therefore, it becomes a significant task to model the process of rendering 3D graphics in such a form, in which it will be as simple as possible to deal with its optimization. The purpose of this study is to create such a model, which will allow to perform the stage of expert evaluation to automatically determine the quality of three-dimensional rendering and use it for optimal control of the rendering pipeline. A number of important issues that require special attention in the research are also discussed. The range of applications of the developed system includes various spheres of human activity involving three-dimensional modeling. Such a system can become a useful tool for both developers and users, which is especially important in education, video game development, virtual reality technologies, etc., where it is necessary to model realistic objects or visualize complex processes.
1. Costa C.J., Aparicio J.T., Aparicio M., Aparicio S. Gamification and AI: Enhancing User Engagement through Intelligent Systems. arXiv. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.10462 [Accessed 13th May 2025].
2. Koulaxidis G., Xinogalos S. Improving Mobile Game Performance with Basic Optimization Techniques in Unity. Modelling. 2022;3(2):201–223. https://doi.org/10.3390/modelling3020014
3. Luna F.D. Introduction to 3D Game Programming with DirectX 12. Dulles: Mercury Learning and Information; 2016. 900 p.
4. Castorina M., Sassone G. Mastering Graphics Programming with Vulkan: Develop a Modern Rendering Engine from First Principles to State-Of-the-Art Techniques. Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.; 2023. 382 p.
5. Akenine-Möller T., Haines E., Hoffman N. Real-Time Rendering. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2019. 1045 p.
6. Antamoshkin O.A., Bryukhanova E.R., Antamoshkina V.O., Pikov N.O., Kukartsev V.V., Tynchenko V.V. Implementation of the Wölfflin Formal Statistical Analysis Method Using Fuzzy Logic. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series: International Scientific Conference "Conference on Applied Physics, Information Technologies and Engineering – APITECH-2019": Volume 1399: Issue 3, 25–27 September 2019, Krasnoyarsk, Russia. Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited; 2019. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1399/3/033103
7. Mymlikov V.N., Antamoshkin O.A., Farafonov M.M. Formalization of the Computer Three-Dimensional Graphics Rendering Optimization Problem as a Variant of the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. Modeling, Optimization and Information Technology. 2024;12(3). (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26102/2310-6018/2024.46.3.014
8. Cacchiani V., Iori M., Locatelli A., Martello S. Knapsack Problems – An Overview of Recent Advances. Part II: Multiple, Multidimensional, and Quadratic Knapsack Problems. Computers & Operations Research. 2022;143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2021.105693
9. Wang H., Kochenberger G., Glover F. A Computational Study on the Quadratic Knapsack Problem with Multiple Constraints. Computers & Operations Research. 2012;39(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2010.12.017
10. Cacchiani V., Iori M., Locatelli A., Martello S. Knapsack Problems – An Overview of Recent Advances. Part I: Single Knapsack Problems. Computers & Operations Research. 2022;143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2021.105692
11. Vaswani A., Shazeer N., Parmar N., et al. Attention Is All You Need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, 04–09 December 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA. 2017. P. 5998–6008. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
12. Nomer H.A.A., Alnowibet Kh.A., Elsayed A., Mohamed A.W. Neural Knapsack: A Neural Network Based Solver for the Knapsack Problem. IEEE Access. 2020;8:224200–224210. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3044005
13. Zhou Yi., Kuang Zh., Wang J. A Chaotic Neural Network Combined Heuristic Strategy for Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. In: Advances in Computation and Intelligence: Third International Symposium on Intelligence Computation and Applications, ISICA 2008: Proceedings, 19–21 December 2008, Wuhan, China. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. P. 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92137-0_78
14. Afshar R.R., Zhang Yi., Firat M., Kaymak U. A State Aggregation Approach for Solving Knapsack Problem with Deep Reinforcement Learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th Asian Conference on Machine Learning, ACML 2020: Volume 129, 18–20 November 2020, Bangkok, Thailand. PMLR; 2020. P. 81–96. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.12117
15. Liu Z., Lin Yu., Cao Yu., et al. Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer Using Shifted Windows. In: 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 10–17 October 2021, Montreal, QC, Canada. IEEE; 2021. P. 9992–10002. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00986
16. Kim H., Yim Ch. Swin Transformer Fusion Network for Image Quality Assessment. IEEE Access. 2024;12:57741–57754. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3378092
17. Hu Zh., Yang G., Du Zh., Huang X., Zhang P., Liu D. No-Reference Image Quality Assessment Based on Global Awareness. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310206
18. Golestaneh S.A., Dadsetan S., Kitani K.M. No-Reference Image Quality Assessment via Transformers, Relative Ranking, and Self-Consistency. In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 03–08 January 2022, Waikoloa, HI, USA. IEEE; 2022. P. 3989–3999. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV51458.2022.00404
19. He T., Shi L., Xu W., Wang Yu, Qiu W., Guo H. From Pixels to Rich-Nodes: A Cognition-Inspired Framework for Blind Image Quality Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting. 2025;71(1):229–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBC.2024.3464418
20. Gracheva M.A., Bozhkova V.P., Kazakova A.A., Rozhkova G.I. Subjective Image and Video Quality Assessment: Methodology Review. Sensory Systems. 2019;33(4):287–304. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0235009219040036
21. Peresunko P., Mamatin D., Antamoshkin O., Peresunko E., Nikitin A. Models of Experts for Shaders Estimation of Rendering Complex 3D Scenes in Real Time. In: 2021 3rd International Conference on Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling, Automation and Energy Efficiency (SUMMA), 10–12 November 2021, Lipetsk, Russia. IEEE; 2021. P. 895–897. https://doi.org/10.1109/SUMMA53307.2021.9632071
