Beauty is in the AI of the beholder: MLLMs systematically overrate facial attractiveness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02512v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 12:16:22 GMT
• Title: Beauty is in the AI of the beholder: MLLMs systematically overrate facial attractiveness
• Abstract summary: We compared the attractiveness ratings of 2,513 human participants to four widely used commercial AI models: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Grok.<n>Results showed that MLLMs systematically rate faces more favourably and within a narrower range than humans.<n> MLLMs exhibit strong correlations with human attractiveness judgments, accurately tracking the rank-ordering of faces.
• Score: 1.0083936071571096
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Beauty assessments from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly popular amongst users, companies, and aestheticians. This raises the question of whether these AI models can accurately reflect human judgments of attractiveness. In a pre- registered exploratory study, we compared the attractiveness ratings of 2,513 human participants to four widely used commercial AI models: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Grok. Results showed that MLLMs systematically rate faces more favourably and within a narrower range than humans and, at the time of study, do not reproduce human ratings in absolute terms. However, MLLMs exhibit strong correlations with human attractiveness judgments, accurately tracking the rank-ordering of faces. MLLMs may judge faces by different cues than humans; only face age was a predictor of facial attractiveness in both humans and MLLMs, with inconsistent patterns across models for ethnicity and gender. AI models strongly agree with one another, except for Grok, which also showed the lowest agreement with humans. Our findings suggest that while they may be able to approximate rank-orderings of human attractiveness, current off-the-shelf commercial MLLMs systematically overrate the beauty of human faces.

Related papers

• Multimodal Large Language Models as Synthetic Participants in Video-Based Studies: An Evaluation [11.282431394902241]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on objective tasks such as video understanding and reasoning.<n>We evaluate MLLMs as synthetic participants in an emerging task: assessing perceived sensory engagement with short videos.<n>We find that even leading MLLMs show limited agreement with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T05:55:45Z)
• Demographic Fairness in Multimodal LLMs: A Benchmark of Gender and Ethnicity Bias in Face Verification [39.17203445317177]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been explored as face verification systems.<n>We present a benchmarking study that evaluates nine open-source MLLMs from six model families.<n>Our results show that FaceLLM-8B, the only face-specialised model in our study, substantially outperforms general-purpose MLLMs on both benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T16:30:00Z)
• Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) [90.45301024940329]
  Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content.<n>We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries.<n>We present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:16:21Z)
• Empirically evaluating commonsense intelligence in large language models with large-scale human judgments [4.212429064310439]
  We propose a method for evaluating common sense in artificial intelligence.<n>We measure the correspondence between a model's judgment and that of a human population.<n>Our framework contributes to the growing call for adapting AI models to human collectivities that possess different, often incompatible, social stocks of knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:55:27Z)
• Beauty and the Bias: Exploring the Impact of Attractiveness on Multimodal Large Language Models [51.590283139444814]
  Physical attractiveness has been shown to influence human perception and decision-making.<n>The role that attractiveness plays in the assessments and decisions made by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is unknown.<n>We conduct an empirical study with 7 diverse open-source MLLMs evaluated on 91 socially relevant scenarios and a diverse dataset of 924 face images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T16:02:55Z)
• Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs [65.93003087656754]
  VisFactor is a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from a well-established cognitive psychology assessment.<n>We evaluate 20 frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) from GPT, Gemini, Claude, LLaMA, Qwen, and SEED families.<n>The best-performing model achieves a score of only 25.19 out of 100, with consistent failures on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• Do Multimodal Large Language Models See Like Humans? [50.938168841711445]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved impressive results on various vision tasks, leveraging recent advancements in large language models.<n>Current benchmarks lack the ability to evaluate MLLMs from this perspective.<n>We introduce HVSBench, a large-scale benchmark designed to assess the alignment between MLLMs and the human visual system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:59:25Z)
• AesBench: An Expert Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models on Image Aesthetics Perception [64.25808552299905]
  AesBench is an expert benchmark aiming to comprehensively evaluate the aesthetic perception capacities of MLLMs. We construct an Expert-labeled Aesthetics Perception Database (EAPD), which features diversified image contents and high-quality annotations provided by professional aesthetic experts. We propose a set of integrative criteria to measure the aesthetic perception abilities of MLLMs from four perspectives, including Perception (AesP), Empathy (AesE), Assessment (AesA) and Interpretation (AesI)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T10:58:07Z)
• Are Commercial Face Detection Models as Biased as Academic Models? [64.71318433419636]
  We compare academic and commercial face detection systems, specifically examining robustness to noise. We find that state-of-the-art academic face detection models exhibit demographic disparities in their noise robustness. We conclude that commercial models are always as biased or more biased than an academic model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-25T02:21:42Z)

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.