Authors:
(1) Tony Lee, Stanford with Equal contribution;
(2) Michihiro Yasunaga, Stanford with Equal contribution;
(3) Chenlin Meng, Stanford with Equal contribution;
(4) Yifan Mai, Stanford;
(5) Joon Sung Park, Stanford;
(6) Agrim Gupta, Stanford;
(7) Yunzhi Zhang, Stanford;
(8) Deepak Narayanan, Microsoft;
(9) Hannah Benita Teufel, Aleph Alpha;
(10) Marco Bellagente, Aleph Alpha;
(11) Minguk Kang, POSTECH;
(12) Taesung Park, Adobe;
(13) Jure Leskovec, Stanford;
(14) Jun-Yan Zhu, CMU;
(15) Li Fei-Fei, Stanford;
(16) Jiajun Wu, Stanford;
(17) Stefano Ermon, Stanford;
(18) Percy Liang, Stanford. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Core framework 3 Aspects 4 Scenarios 5 Metrics 6 Models 7 Experiments and results 8 Related work 9 Conclusion 10 Limitations Author contributions, Acknowledgments and References A Datasheet B Scenario details C Metric details D Model details E Human evaluation procedure 5 Metrics To evaluate the 12 aspects (§3), we also curate a diverse and realistic set of metrics. Table 3 presents an overview of all the metrics and their descriptions. Compared to previous metrics, our metrics are more realistic and broader. First, in addition to automated metrics, we use human metrics (top rows in Table 3) to perform realistic evaluation that reflects human judgment [25, 26, 27]. Specifically, we employ human metrics for the overall text-image alignment and photorealism, which are used for many evaluation aspects, including alignment, quality, knowledge, reasoning, fairness, robustness, and multilinguality. We also employ human metrics for overall aesthetics and originality, for which capturing the nuances of human judgment is important. To conduct human evaluation, we employ crowdsourcing following the methodology described in Otani et al.,[35]. Concrete English definitions are provided for each human evaluation question and rating choice, and a minimum of 5 participants evaluate each image. We use at least 100 image samples for each aspect. For more details about the crowdsourcing procedure, please refer to Appendix E. The second contribution is introducing new metrics for aspects that have received limited attention in existing evaluation efforts, namely fairness, robustness, multilinguality, and efficiency, as discussed in §3. The new metrics aim to close the evaluation gaps. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Tony Lee, Stanford with Equal contribution; (2) Michihiro Yasunaga, Stanford with Equal contribution; (3) Chenlin Meng, Stanford with Equal contribution; (4) Yifan Mai, Stanford; (5) Joon Sung Park, Stanford; (6) Agrim Gupta, Stanford; (7) Yunzhi Zhang, Stanford; (8) Deepak Narayanan, Microsoft; (9) Hannah Benita Teufel, Aleph Alpha; (10) Marco Bellagente, Aleph Alpha; (11) Minguk Kang, POSTECH; (12) Taesung Park, Adobe; (13) Jure Leskovec, Stanford; (14) Jun-Yan Zhu, CMU; (15) Li Fei-Fei, Stanford; (16) Jiajun Wu, Stanford; (17) Stefano Ermon, Stanford; (18) Percy Liang, Stanford. Authors: Authors: (1) Tony Lee, Stanford with Equal contribution; (2) Michihiro Yasunaga, Stanford with Equal contribution; (3) Chenlin Meng, Stanford with Equal contribution; (4) Yifan Mai, Stanford; (5) Joon Sung Park, Stanford; (6) Agrim Gupta, Stanford; (7) Yunzhi Zhang, Stanford; (8) Deepak Narayanan, Microsoft; (9) Hannah Benita Teufel, Aleph Alpha; (10) Marco Bellagente, Aleph Alpha; (11) Minguk Kang, POSTECH; (12) Taesung Park, Adobe; (13) Jure Leskovec, Stanford; (14) Jun-Yan Zhu, CMU; (15) Li Fei-Fei, Stanford; (16) Jiajun Wu, Stanford; (17) Stefano Ermon, Stanford; (18) Percy Liang, Stanford. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Core framework 2 Core framework 3 Aspects 3 Aspects 4 Scenarios 4 Scenarios 5 Metrics 5 Metrics 6 Models 6 Models 7 Experiments and results 7 Experiments and results 8 Related work 8 Related work 9 Conclusion 9 Conclusion 10 Limitations 10 Limitations Author contributions, Acknowledgments and References Author contributions, Acknowledgments and References A Datasheet A Datasheet B Scenario details B Scenario details C Metric details C Metric details D Model details D Model details E Human evaluation procedure E Human evaluation procedure 5 Metrics To evaluate the 12 aspects (§3), we also curate a diverse and realistic set of metrics. Table 3 presents an overview of all the metrics and their descriptions. Compared to previous metrics, our metrics are more realistic and broader. First, in addition to automated metrics, we use human metrics (top rows in Table 3) to perform realistic evaluation that reflects human judgment [25, 26, 27]. Specifically, we employ human metrics for the overall text-image alignment and photorealism, which are used for many evaluation aspects, including alignment, quality, knowledge, reasoning, fairness, robustness, and multilinguality. We also employ human metrics for overall aesthetics and originality, for which capturing the nuances of human judgment is important. To conduct human evaluation, we employ crowdsourcing following the methodology described in Otani et al.,[35]. Concrete English definitions are provided for each human evaluation question and rating choice, and a minimum of 5 participants evaluate each image. We use at least 100 image samples for each aspect. For more details about the crowdsourcing procedure, please refer to Appendix E. The second contribution is introducing new metrics for aspects that have received limited attention in existing evaluation efforts, namely fairness, robustness, multilinguality, and efficiency, as discussed in §3. The new metrics aim to close the evaluation gaps. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Photorealism, Bias, and Beyond: Results from Evaluating 26 Text-to-Image Models

Curating 62 Practical Scenarios to Test AI Text-to-Image Models

AutoEncoder.tech

Too Long; Didn't Read

Make resilience your competitive advantage

Evaluating AI Models with HEIM Metrics for Fairness, Robustness, and More

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

12 Key Aspects for Assessing the Power of Text-to-Image Models

Pay attention to that man behind the curtain

AI Is Inherently Neutral - It Is Human Beings Who Are Biased, and the Machines Merely Replicate Them

AI Is Not the Concern - It’s AI Developers You Should Be Worried About

Are Smart Cities a Threat to Data Privacy?

12 Key Aspects for Assessing the Power of Text-to-Image Models

Pay attention to that man behind the curtain

AI Is Inherently Neutral - It Is Human Beings Who Are Biased, and the Machines Merely Replicate Them

AI Is Not the Concern - It’s AI Developers You Should Be Worried About

Are Smart Cities a Threat to Data Privacy?

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps