VIEScore: Towards Explainable Metrics for Conditional Image Synthesis Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14867v2
• Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:59:20 GMT
• Title: VIEScore: Towards Explainable Metrics for Conditional Image Synthesis Evaluation
• Authors: Max Ku, Dongfu Jiang, Cong Wei, Xiang Yue, Wenhu Chen,
• Abstract summary: VIEScore is a Visual Instruction-guided Explainable metric for evaluating any conditional image generation tasks. We evaluate VIEScore on seven prominent tasks in conditional image tasks and found: VIEScore (GPT4-o) achieves a high Spearman correlation of 0.4 with human evaluations, while the human-to-human correlation is 0.45. VIEScore (with open-source MLLM) is significantly weaker than GPT-4o and GPT-4v in evaluating synthetic images.
• Score: 39.88401703956412
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the rapidly advancing field of conditional image generation research, challenges such as limited explainability lie in effectively evaluating the performance and capabilities of various models. This paper introduces VIEScore, a Visual Instruction-guided Explainable metric for evaluating any conditional image generation tasks. VIEScore leverages general knowledge from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as the backbone and does not require training or fine-tuning. We evaluate VIEScore on seven prominent tasks in conditional image tasks and found: (1) VIEScore (GPT4-o) achieves a high Spearman correlation of 0.4 with human evaluations, while the human-to-human correlation is 0.45. (2) VIEScore (with open-source MLLM) is significantly weaker than GPT-4o and GPT-4v in evaluating synthetic images. (3) VIEScore achieves a correlation on par with human ratings in the generation tasks but struggles in editing tasks. With these results, we believe VIEScore shows its great potential to replace human judges in evaluating image synthesis tasks.

Related papers

• Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset [6.106100820330045]
  This work explores an important but underexplored area: detecting toxicity in peer reviews. We first define toxicity in peer reviews across four distinct categories and curate a dataset of peer reviews from the OpenReview platform. We benchmark a variety of models, including a dedicated toxicity detection model and a sentiment analysis model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T23:01:39Z)
• Evaluating Hallucination in Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Scene-Graph based Question-Answering Agent [9.748808189341526]
  An effective Text-to-Image (T2I) evaluation metric should accomplish the following: detect instances where the generated images do not align with the textual prompts. We propose a method based on large language models (LLMs) for conducting question-answering with an extracted scene-graph and created a dataset with human-rated scores for generated images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T18:44:38Z)
• Automatic Evaluation for Text-to-image Generation: Task-decomposed Framework, Distilled Training, and Meta-evaluation Benchmark [62.58869921806019]
  We propose a task decomposition evaluation framework based on GPT-4o to automatically construct a new training dataset. We design innovative training strategies to effectively distill GPT-4o's evaluation capabilities into a 7B open-source MLLM, MiniCPM-V-2.6. Experimental results demonstrate that our distilled open-source MLLM significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art GPT-4o-base baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T08:06:06Z)
• HumanEval-V: Benchmarking High-Level Visual Reasoning with Complex Diagrams in Coding Tasks [25.959032350818795]
  We present HumanEval-V, a benchmark of human-annotated coding tasks. Each task features carefully crafted diagrams paired with function signatures and test cases. We find that even top-performing models achieve modest success rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T09:04:57Z)
• LLMs as Evaluators: A Novel Approach to Evaluate Bug Report Summarization [9.364214238045317]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various software engineering tasks. In this study, we investigate whether LLMs can evaluate bug report summarization effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-01T06:30:39Z)
• Q-Bench+: A Benchmark for Multi-modal Foundation Models on Low-level Vision from Single Images to Pairs [71.07108539262721]
  We design benchmark settings to emulate human language responses related to low-level vision. We extend the low-level perception-related question-answering and description evaluations of MLLMs from single images to image pairs. We demonstrate that several MLLMs have decent low-level visual competencies on single images, but only GPT-4V exhibits higher accuracy on pairwise comparisons than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T06:44:11Z)
• GPT-4V(ision) as a Generalist Evaluator for Vision-Language Tasks [70.98062518872999]
  We validate GPT-4V's capabilities for evaluation purposes, addressing tasks ranging from foundational image-to-text and text-to-image synthesis to high-level image-to-image translations and multi-images to text alignment. Notably, GPT-4V shows promising agreement with humans across various tasks and evaluation methods, demonstrating immense potential for multi-modal LLMs as evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T16:11:09Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)

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.