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

Fatima Jahara

dblp:340/6715 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—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
Generative modeling · 50% Language models and text generation · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model evaluation
meta-evaluation
0.812024
Who Evaluates the Evaluations? Objectively Scoring Text-to-Image Prompt Coherence Metrics with T2IScoreScore (TS2) · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
text-to-image generation
0.812024
Who Evaluates the Evaluations? Objectively Scoring Text-to-Image Prompt Coherence Metrics with T2IScoreScore (TS2) · NeurIPS 2024

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

vision-language model · 0.8statistical test · 0.8cross-modal embedding · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Who Evaluates the Evaluations? Objectively Scoring Text-to-Image Prompt Coherence Metrics with T2IScoreScore (TS2)
abstract
With advances in the quality of text-to-image (T2I) models has come interest in benchmarking their prompt faithfulness---the semantic coherence of generated images to the prompts they were conditioned on. A variety of T2I faithfulness metrics have been proposed, leveraging advances in cross-modal embeddings and vision-language models (VLMs). However, these metrics are not rigorously compared and benchmarked, instead presented with correlation to human Likert scores over a set of easy-to-discriminate images against seemingly weak baselines. We introduce T2IScoreScore, a curated set of semantic error graphs containing a prompt and a set of increasingly erroneous images. These allow us to rigorously judge whether a given prompt faithfulness metric can correctly order images with respect to their objective error count and significantly discriminate between different error nodes, using meta-metric scores derived from established statistical tests. Surprisingly, we find that the state-of-the-art VLM-based metrics (e.g., TIFA, DSG, LLMScore, VIEScore) we tested fail to significantly outperform simple (and supposedly worse) feature-based metrics like CLIPScore, particularly on a hard subset of naturally-occurring T2I model errors. TS2 will enable the development of better T2I prompt faithfulness metrics through more rigorous comparison of their conformity to expected orderings and separations under objective criteria.
Michael Saxon, Fatima Jahara, Mahsa Khoshnoodi, William Yang Wang
NeurIPS2