Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Andrew T. Scott

dblp:292/9030 · also Andrew Taylor Scott · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Vision and language · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › Vision and language › image captioning
image caption evaluation
0.712023
Validated Image Caption Rating Dataset · NeurIPS 2023
Computer vision › Vision and language
image captioning
0.712023
Validated Image Caption Rating Dataset · NeurIPS 2023
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing
0.212023
Validated Image Caption Rating Dataset · NeurIPS 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning rating predictors · 1.3gamified rating scale · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Validated Image Caption Rating Dataset
abstract
We present a new high-quality validated image caption rating (VICR) dataset. How well a caption fits an image can be difficult to assess due to the subjective nature of caption quality. How do we evaluate whether a caption is good? We generated a new dataset to help answer this question by using our new image caption rating system, which consists of a novel robust rating scale and gamified approach to gathering human ratings. We show that our approach is consistent and teachable. 113 participants were involved in generating the dataset, which is composed of 68,217 ratings among 15,646 image-caption pairs. Our new dataset has greater inter-rater agreement than the state of the art, and custom machine learning rating predictors that were trained on our dataset outperform previous metrics. We improve over Flickr8k-Expert in Kendall's $W$ by 12\% and in Fleiss' $\kappa$ by 19\%, and thus provide a new benchmark dataset for image caption rating.
Lothar Narins, Andrew T. Scott, Aakash Gautam, Anagha Kulkarni 0001, Mar Castanon, Benjamin Kao, Shasta Ihorn, Yue-Ting Siu, James M. Mason, Alexander Blum, Ilmi Yoon
NeurIPS2