Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07984v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 20:33:35 GMT
• Title: Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models
• Abstract summary: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at visual perception, yet their ability to interpret cultural meaning in art remains under-validated.<n>Tier I computes automated coverage and risk indicators offline; Tier II applies rubric-based scoring using a single primary judge across five dimensions.<n>Tier III calibrates the Tier II aggregate score to human ratings via isotonic regression, yielding a 5.2% reduction in MAE on a 152-sample held-out set.
• Score: 4.317017868438435
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at visual perception, yet their ability to interpret cultural meaning in art remains under-validated. We present a tri-tier evaluation framework for cross-cultural art-critique assessment: Tier I computes automated coverage and risk indicators offline; Tier II applies rubric-based scoring using a single primary judge across five dimensions; and Tier III calibrates the Tier II aggregate score to human ratings via isotonic regression, yielding a 5.2% reduction in MAE on a 152-sample held-out set. The framework outputs a calibrated cultural-understanding score for model selection and cultural-gap diagnosis, together with dimension-level diagnostics and risk indicators. We evaluate 15 VLMs on 294 expert anchors spanning six cultural traditions. Key findings are that (i) automated metrics are unreliable proxies for cultural depth, (ii) Western samples score higher than non-Western samples under our sampling and rubric, and (iii) cross-judge scale mismatch makes naive score averaging unreliable, motivating a single primary judge with explicit calibration. Dataset and code are available in the supplementary materials.

Related papers

• Debiasing Text-to-Image Evaluation via Implicit Cultural Alignment Reward Modeling [1.1172382217477128]
  We introduce an Implicit Cultural Alignment Reward Model for generative AI.<n>Our framework integrates an Implicit Cultural Probe with a Skip-connection Cross-Attention mechanism.<n>Our model processes each evaluation in 0.21 seconds under our local inference setup, achieving a $10times$ speedup over standard VQA-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:23:03Z)
• CultureForest: Understanding and Evaluating Cultural Norm Grounded Reasoning in LLMs [59.09971492475217]
  We introduce CultureForest, a benchmark for textitCultural Norm Grounded Reasoning<n>CultureForest comprises 5,378 examples across 8 domains and 53 countries/regions.<n>Extensive experiments reveal that even top-tier models degrade substantially in open-ended settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T08:25:12Z)
• Can Persona-Prompted LLMs Emulate Subgroup Values? An Empirical Analysis of Generalisability and Fairness in Cultural Alignment [75.88231994139132]
  We show that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4.1 achieve only 57.4% accuracy in predicting modal preferences.<n>We find significant pre-existing performance biases, where models better emulate young, male, Chinese, and Christian personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T15:06:13Z)
• Cultural Authenticity: Comparing LLM Cultural Representations to Native Human Expectations [7.285754268528876]
  We introduce a human-centered framework to evaluate the alignment of Large Language Model generations with local expectations.<n>Our investigation of the alignment between the human-derived Cultural Importance and model-derived Cultural Representations reveals a Western-centric calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T22:39:15Z)
• Mitigating Preference Leakage via Strict Estimator Separation for Normative Generative Ranking [16.186456141688645]
  Current evaluations suffer from circularity and preference leakage.<n>We introduce a leakage-free two-judge framework that strictly separates supervision (Judge B) from evaluation (Judge A)<n>Our results prove that subtle cultural preferences can be distilled into efficient rankers without leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T11:38:36Z)
• CURE: Cultural Understanding and Reasoning Evaluation - A Framework for "Thick" Culture Alignment Evaluation in LLMs [24.598338950728234]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in culturally diverse environments.<n>Existing methods focus on de-contextualized correctness or forced-choice judgments.<n>We introduce a set of benchmarks that present models with realistic situational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T03:39:13Z)
• I Am Aligned, But With Whom? MENA Values Benchmark for Evaluating Cultural Alignment and Multilingual Bias in LLMs [5.060243371992739]
  We introduce MENAValues, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the cultural alignment and multilingual biases of large language models (LLMs)<n> Drawing from large-scale, authoritative human surveys, we curate a structured dataset that captures the sociocultural landscape of MENA with population-level response distributions from 16 countries.<n>Our analysis reveals three critical phenomena: "Cross-Lingual Value Shifts" where identical questions yield drastically different responses based on language, "Reasoning-Induced Degradation" where prompting models to explain their reasoning worsens cultural alignment, and "Logit Leakage" where models refuse sensitive questions while internal probabilities reveal strong hidden
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T05:10:57Z)
• CAIRe: Cultural Attribution of Images by Retrieval-Augmented Evaluation [61.130639734982395]
  We introduce CAIRe, a novel evaluation metric that assesses the degree of cultural relevance of an image.<n>Our framework grounds entities and concepts in the image to a knowledge base and uses factual information to give independent graded judgments for each culture label.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T17:16:23Z)
• CulturalFrames: Assessing Cultural Expectation Alignment in Text-to-Image Models and Evaluation Metrics [23.567641319277943]
  We quantify the alignment of text-to-image (T2I) models and evaluation metrics.<n>CulturalFrames is a novel benchmark for rigorous human evaluation of cultural representation.<n>We find that across models and countries, cultural expectations are missed an average of 44% of the time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T14:21:46Z)
• Multimodal Cultural Safety: Evaluation Frameworks and Alignment Strategies [58.88053690412802]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in globally distributed applications, such as tourism assistants.<n> CROSS is a benchmark designed to assess the cultural safety reasoning capabilities of LVLMs.<n>We evaluate 21 leading LVLMs, including mixture-of-experts models and reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T23:20:38Z)
• RAVENEA: A Benchmark for Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Visual Culture Understanding [79.44246283490665]
  We introduce RAVENEA, a new benchmark designed to advance visual culture understanding through retrieval.<n>RAVENEA focuses on two tasks: culture-focused visual question answering (cVQA) and culture-informed image captioning (cIC)<n>We train and evaluate seven multimodal retrievers for each image query, and measure the downstream impact of retrieval-augmented inputs across fourteen state-of-the-art vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T14:57:16Z)
• Randomness, Not Representation: The Unreliability of Evaluating Cultural Alignment in LLMs [7.802103248428407]
  We identify and test three assumptions behind current survey-based evaluation methods.<n>We find a high level of instability across presentation formats, incoherence between evaluated versus held-out cultural dimensions, and erratic behavior under prompt steering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:59:53Z)
• Vision-Language Models under Cultural and Inclusive Considerations [53.614528867159706]
  Large vision-language models (VLMs) can assist visually impaired people by describing images from their daily lives. Current evaluation datasets may not reflect diverse cultural user backgrounds or the situational context of this use case. We create a survey to determine caption preferences and propose a culture-centric evaluation benchmark by filtering VizWiz, an existing dataset with images taken by people who are blind. We then evaluate several VLMs, investigating their reliability as visual assistants in a culturally diverse setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:50:00Z)
• On the Cultural Gap in Text-to-Image Generation [75.69755281031951]
  One challenge in text-to-image (T2I) generation is the inadvertent reflection of culture gaps present in the training data. There is no benchmark to systematically evaluate a T2I model's ability to generate cross-cultural images. We propose a Challenging Cross-Cultural (C3) benchmark with comprehensive evaluation criteria, which can assess how well-suited a model is to a target culture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T13:17:55Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)

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.