Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 2 Concepts in Pretraining Data and Quantifying Frequency 2 Concepts in Pretraining Data and Quantifying Frequency 3 Comparing Pretraining Frequency & “Zero-Shot” Performance and 3.1 Experimental Setup 3 Comparing Pretraining Frequency & “Zero-Shot” Performance and 3.1 Experimental Setup 3.2 Result: Pretraining Frequency is Predictive of “Zero-Shot” Performance 3.2 Result: Pretraining Frequency is Predictive of “Zero-Shot” Performance 4 Stress-Testing the Concept Frequency-Performance Scaling Trend and 4.1 Controlling for Similar Samples in Pretraining and Downstream Data 4 Stress-Testing the Concept Frequency-Performance Scaling Trend and 4.1 Controlling for Similar Samples in Pretraining and Downstream Data 4.2 Testing Generalization to Purely Synthetic Concept and Data Distributions 4.2 Testing Generalization to Purely Synthetic Concept and Data Distributions 5 Additional Insights from Pretraining Concept Frequencies 5 Additional Insights from Pretraining Concept Frequencies 6 Testing the Tail: Let It Wag! 6 Testing the Tail: Let It Wag! 7 Related Work 7 Related Work 8 Conclusions and Open Problems, Acknowledgements, and References 8 Conclusions and Open Problems, Acknowledgements, and References Part I Part I Appendix Appendix A. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance Across Prompting Strategies A. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance Across Prompting Strategies B. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance Across Retrieval Metrics B. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance Across Retrieval Metrics C. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance for T2I Models C. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance for T2I Models D. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance across Concepts only from Image and Text Domains D. Concept Frequency is Predictive of Performance across Concepts only from Image and Text Domains E. Experimental Details E. Experimental Details F. Why and How Do We Use RAM++? F. Why and How Do We Use RAM++? G. Details about Misalignment Degree Results G. Details about Misalignment Degree Results H. T2I Models: Evaluation H. T2I Models: Evaluation I. Classification Results: Let It Wag! I. Classification Results: Let It Wag! H T2I Models: Evaluation We provide additional quantitative and qualitative results in this section for T2I models evaluated on the “Let It Wag!” dataset. “Let It Wag! H.1 Quantitative Results by Retrieval We provide further analysis on how state-of-the-art T2I models perform on the long-tailed concepts comprising the “Let It Wag!” dataset. As detailed in Sec. 6, we generate 4 images for each concept using Stable Diffusion XL [89], Stable Diffusion v2 [96] and Dreamlike Photoreal [1]. “Let It Wag!” Prompting Strategy. The prompting strategy (system role) used, adapted from Shahmohammadi et al. [105], was: Prompting Strategy. With this pool of generated images, we conduct a controlled experiment on the long-tailed concepts using nearest-neighbor retrieval as the evaluation metric by querying a generated image and retrieving the top-k results from a gallery of images taken from the “Let It Wag!” dataset. The overall pipeline is as follows: “Let It Wag!” Setup. We define the query and gallery set for head and tail concepts. For tail concepts, we sample the 25 concepts with the lowest frequency from the “Let It Wag!” dataset. For head concepts, we sample the 25 most frequent concepts for comparison. We use the same prompting strategy with the selected 25 concepts across all 3 T2I models. To create the gallery set, we randomly sample 100 images for each of these concepts. We use DINOv2 [85] ViT-S/14 as the feature extractor. Setup. We “Let It Wag!” Results. In Table 5, we provide the Cumulative Matching Characteristic (CMC@k) results for all 3 T2I models used in our experiment. CMC@k was chosen as we are interested in measuring the delta between head and tail concepts for successful retrievals within the top-k retrieved real images for a given generated image. We observe a large performance gap between Head and Tail concepts, providing a quantitative evaluation of generation performance of T2I models. Results Head Tail H.2 Qualitative Results In Fig. 7 of the main text, we provide an initial insight into the qualitative performance of T2I models on “Let It Wag!” concepts. For ease of comprehension and comparison, we segregate concepts into 4 clusters: Aircraft (Fig. 23), Activity (Fig. 24), Animal (Fig. 25) and others (Fig. 26). “Let It Wag!” Results. Fig. 23 shows T2I models having difficulty in representing an aircraft in its full form in a majority of cases in addition to misrepresenting the specific model in the generated images. Fig. 24 showcases the difficulty T2I models face when representing actions or activities from prompts. Fig. 25 exemplifies the same inability of T2I models to accurately represent animal species. Finally, the remainder of the query set is shown in Fig. 26 and includes the inability to classify and subsequently generate certain species of flowers and objects. Results I Classification Results: Let It Wag! Let It Wag! Here, we present the raw accuracy values of the 40 tested models on both Let It Wag! and ImageNet in Tab. 6. For reference, we also report the datasets these models were trained on and the number of parameters for each model. We see clear drops in performance compared to ImageNet, across model sizes, architectures and pretraining datasets. Let It Wag! Authors:
(1) Vishaal Udandarao, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen, University of Cambridge, and equal contribution;
(2) Ameya Prabhu, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen, University of Oxford, and equal contribution;
(3) Adhiraj Ghosh, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen;
(4) Yash Sharma, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen;
(5) Philip H.S. Torr, University of Oxford;
(6) Adel Bibi, University of Oxford;
(7) Samuel Albanie, University of Cambridge and equal advising, order decided by a coin flip;
(8) Matthias Bethge, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen and equal advising, order decided by a coin flip. Authors: Authors: (1) Vishaal Udandarao, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen, University of Cambridge, and equal contribution; (2) Ameya Prabhu, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen, University of Oxford, and equal contribution; (3) Adhiraj Ghosh, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen; (4) Yash Sharma, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen; (5) Philip H.S. Torr, University of Oxford; (6) Adel Bibi, University of Oxford; (7) Samuel Albanie, University of Cambridge and equal advising, order decided by a coin flip; (8) Matthias Bethge, Tubingen AI Center, University of Tubingen and equal advising, order decided by a coin flip. 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 available on arxiv

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

What Happens When Your Prompt Is Too Obscure?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

A Close Look at Misalignment in Pretraining Datasets

What 300GB of AI Research Reveals About the True Limits of “Zero-Shot” Intelligence

How AI Models Count and Match Concepts in Images and Text

Analyzing the Impact of Pretraining Frequency on Zero-Shot Performance in Multimodal Models

AI Models Trained on Synthetic Data Still Follow Concept Frequency Trends

AI Training Data Has a Long-Tail Problem

A Close Look at Misalignment in Pretraining Datasets

What 300GB of AI Research Reveals About the True Limits of “Zero-Shot” Intelligence

How AI Models Count and Match Concepts in Images and Text

Analyzing the Impact of Pretraining Frequency on Zero-Shot Performance in Multimodal Models

AI Models Trained on Synthetic Data Still Follow Concept Frequency Trends

AI Training Data Has a Long-Tail Problem

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps