Perception of Visual Content: Differences Between Humans and Foundation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18968v1
• Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:37:04 GMT
• Title: Perception of Visual Content: Differences Between Humans and Foundation Models
• Authors: Nardiena A. Pratama, Shaoyang Fan, Gianluca Demartini,
• Abstract summary: This study compares human-generated and ML-generated annotations of images representing diverse socio-economic contexts. Our dataset comprises images of people from various geographical regions and income levels washing their hands.
• Score: 4.251488927334905
• License:
• Abstract: Human-annotated content is often used to train machine learning (ML) models. However, recently, language and multi-modal foundational models have been used to replace and scale-up human annotator's efforts. This study compares human-generated and ML-generated annotations of images representing diverse socio-economic contexts. We aim to understand differences in perception and identify potential biases in content interpretation. Our dataset comprises images of people from various geographical regions and income levels washing their hands. We compare human and ML-generated annotations semantically and evaluate their impact on predictive models. Our results show low similarity between human and machine annotations from a low-level perspective, i.e., types of words that appear and sentence structures, but are alike in how similar or dissimilar they perceive images across different regions. Additionally, human annotations resulted in best overall and most balanced region classification performance on the class level, while ML Objects and ML Captions performed best for income regression. Humans and machines' similarity in their lack of bias when perceiving images highlights how they are more alike than what was initially perceived. The superior and fairer performance of using human annotations for region classification and machine annotations for income regression show how important the quality of the images and the discriminative features in the annotations are.

Related papers

• When Does Perceptual Alignment Benefit Vision Representations? [76.32336818860965]
  We investigate how aligning vision model representations to human perceptual judgments impacts their usability. We find that aligning models to perceptual judgments yields representations that improve upon the original backbones across many downstream tasks. Our results suggest that injecting an inductive bias about human perceptual knowledge into vision models can contribute to better representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:59:58Z)
• Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback [8.04095222893591]
  We find significant gaps in fairness preferences depending on the race, age, political stance, educational level, and LGBTQ+ identity of annotators. We also demonstrate that demographics mentioned in text have a strong influence on how users perceive individual fairness in moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T19:42:25Z)
• Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Bistable Images [34.492117496933915]
  This study is the most extensive examination of vision-language models using bistable images to date. We manually gathered a dataset of 29 bistable images, along with their associated labels, and subjected them to 116 different manipulations in brightness, tint, and rotation. Our findings reveal that, with the exception of models from the Idefics family and LLaVA1.5-13b, there is a pronounced preference for one interpretation over another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T18:04:59Z)
• Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes [47.7950860342515]
  Modern neural language models (LMs) are powerful tools for modeling human sentence production and comprehension. But to achieve these results, LMs must be trained in distinctly un-human-like ways. Do models trained more naturalistically -- with grounded supervision -- exhibit more humanlike language learning? We investigate this question in the context of word learning, a key sub-task in language acquisition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T03:33:36Z)
• DreamSim: Learning New Dimensions of Human Visual Similarity using Synthetic Data [43.247597420676044]
  Current perceptual similarity metrics operate at the level of pixels and patches. These metrics compare images in terms of their low-level colors and textures, but fail to capture mid-level similarities and differences in image layout, object pose, and semantic content. We develop a perceptual metric that assesses images holistically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T17:59:50Z)
• Auditing Gender Presentation Differences in Text-to-Image Models [54.16959473093973]
  We study how gender is presented differently in text-to-image models. By probing gender indicators in the input text, we quantify the frequency differences of presentation-centric attributes. We propose an automatic method to estimate such differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-07T18:52:22Z)
• On the Compositional Generalization Gap of In-Context Learning [73.09193595292233]
  We look at the gap between the in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) performance of such models in semantic parsing tasks with in-context learning. We evaluate four model families, OPT, BLOOM, CodeGen and Codex on three semantic parsing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T19:56:37Z)
• VGSE: Visually-Grounded Semantic Embeddings for Zero-Shot Learning [113.50220968583353]
  We propose to discover semantic embeddings containing discriminative visual properties for zero-shot learning. Our model visually divides a set of images from seen classes into clusters of local image regions according to their visual similarity. We demonstrate that our visually-grounded semantic embeddings further improve performance over word embeddings across various ZSL models by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-20T03:49:02Z)
• Exploring Alignment of Representations with Human Perception [47.53970721813083]
  We show that inputs that are mapped to similar representations by the model should be perceived similarly by humans. Our approach yields a measure of the extent to which a model is aligned with human perception. We find that various properties of a model like its architecture, training paradigm, training loss, and data augmentation play a significant role in learning representations that are aligned with human perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-29T17:26:50Z)

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.