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 2 Core framework We focus on evaluating text-to-image models, which take textual prompts as input and generate images. Inspired by HELM [1], we decompose the model evaluation into four key components: aspect, scenario, adaptation, and metric (Figure 4). An aspect refers to a specific evaluative dimension. Examples include image quality, originality, and bias. Evaluating multiple aspects allows us to capture diverse characteristics of generated images. We evaluate 12 aspects, listed in Table 1, through a combination of scenarios and metrics. Each aspect is defined by a scenario-metric pair. A scenario represents a specific use case and is represented by a set of instances, each consisting of a textual input and optionally a reference output image. We consider various scenarios reflecting different domains and tasks, such as descriptions of common objects (MS-COCO) and logo design (Logos). The complete list of scenarios is provided in Table 2. Adaptation is the specific procedure used to run a model, such as translating the instance input into a prompt and feeding it into the model. Adaptation strategies include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, prompt engineering, and finetuning. We focus on zero-shot prompting. We also explore prompt engineering techniques, such as Promptist [28], which use language models to refine the inputs before feeding into the model. A metric quantifies the quality of image generations according to some standard. A metric can be human (e.g., humans rate the overall text-image alignment on a 1-5 scale) or automated (e.g., CLIPScore). We use both human and automated metrics to capture both subjective and objective assessments. The metrics are listed in Table 3. In the subsequent sections of the paper, we delve into the details of aspects (§3), scenarios (§4), metrics (§5), and models (§6), followed by the discussion of experimental results and findings in §7. 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 2 Core framework We focus on evaluating text-to-image models, which take textual prompts as input and generate images. Inspired by HELM [1], we decompose the model evaluation into four key components: aspect, scenario, adaptation, and metric (Figure 4). An aspect refers to a specific evaluative dimension. Examples include image quality, originality, and bias. Evaluating multiple aspects allows us to capture diverse characteristics of generated images. We evaluate 12 aspects, listed in Table 1, through a combination of scenarios and metrics. Each aspect is defined by a scenario-metric pair. aspect A scenario represents a specific use case and is represented by a set of instances, each consisting of a textual input and optionally a reference output image. We consider various scenarios reflecting different domains and tasks, such as descriptions of common objects (MS-COCO) and logo design (Logos). The complete list of scenarios is provided in Table 2. scenario Adaptation is the specific procedure used to run a model, such as translating the instance input into a prompt and feeding it into the model. Adaptation strategies include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, prompt engineering, and finetuning. We focus on zero-shot prompting. We also explore prompt engineering techniques, such as Promptist [28], which use language models to refine the inputs before feeding into the model. Adaptation A metric quantifies the quality of image generations according to some standard. A metric can be human (e.g., humans rate the overall text-image alignment on a 1-5 scale) or automated (e.g., CLIPScore). We use both human and automated metrics to capture both subjective and objective assessments. The metrics are listed in Table 3. metric In the subsequent sections of the paper, we delve into the details of aspects (§3), scenarios (§4), metrics (§5), and models (§6), followed by the discussion of experimental results and findings in §7. 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.

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

Holistic Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models

AutoEncoder.tech

Too Long; Didn't Read

Get Free Unlimited IP Geo Data With IPinfo Lite

HEIM’s Core Framework: A Comprehensive Approach to Text-to-Image Model Assessment

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

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?

Can AI Ever Overcome Built-In Human Biases?

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?

Can AI Ever Overcome Built-In Human Biases?

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps