Understanding Subjectivity through the Lens of Motivational Context in Model-Generated Image Satisfaction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Image generation models are poised to become ubiquitous in a range of applications. These models are often fine-tuned and evaluated using human quality judgments that assume a universal standard, failing to consider the subjectivity of such tasks. To investigate how to quantify subjectivity, and the scale of its impact, we measure how assessments differ among human annotators across different use cases. Simulating the effects of ordinarily latent elements of annotators subjectivity, we contrive a set of motivations (t-shirt graphics, presentation visuals, and phone background images) to contextualize a set of crowdsourcing tasks. Our results show that human evaluations of images vary within individual contexts and across combinations of contexts. Three key factors affecting this subjectivity are image appearance, image alignment with text, and representation of objects mentioned in the text. Our study highlights the importance of taking individual users and contexts into account, both when building and evaluating generative models
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2024.
Builds on
18 of 48 references.
References · 18
- 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,694
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2022Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latentscited by 6,539
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
- 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,276
- 2022Imagen Video: High Definition Video Generation with Diffusion Modelscited by 1,765
- 2022Galactica: A Large Language Model for Sciencecited by 736
- 2023Language Is Not All You Need: Aligning Perception with Language Modelscited by 543
- 2019Human uncertainty makes classification more robustcited by 231
- 2017Deep learning from crowdscited by 105
- 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
- 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
6 more
- 2019Garbage In, Garbage Out? Do Machine Learning Application Papers in Social Computing Report Where Human-Labeled Training Data Comes From?cited by 64
- 2022Eliciting and Learning with Soft Labels from Every Annotatorcited by 43
- 2023Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systemscited by 39
- 2017Pragmatic-Pedagogic Value Alignmentcited by 36
- 2022Ambiguous Images With Human Judgments for Robust Visual Event Classificationcited by 12
- 2020DiverseNet: When One Right Answer is not Enoughcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.