Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Parth Bhargava
dblp:433/2987
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0002-8741-6203ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 100% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Visual content generation and editing · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-AI interaction › generative AI
text-to-image generation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Do Entropic Measurements of the Diversity of AI-generated Images Match Human Judgement? · CHI 2026 |
Visual content generation and editing › image generation
text-to-image generation |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Do Entropic Measurements of the Diversity of AI-generated Images Match Human Judgement? · CHI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
human evaluation · 2.0diversity measures · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Do Entropic Measurements of the Diversity of AI-generated Images Match Human Judgement?abstractThis paper proposes that the ability to generate diverse outputs in response to a single prompt is necessary for text-to-image models to become more effective creativity support tools. It formalises the problem of measuring the diversity of generated text and images, with an emphasis on interactive, exploratory use in open-ended and creative tasks. It suggests, motivated by research in the psychology of creativity, that diversity should sit alongside image quality and fit-to-prompt as critical measures in this setting. The paper adapts several diversity measures from the literature to this task, then explores how they compare to human diversity ratings. These evaluations show that algorithmic measures of diversity can be a useful proxy for human ratings, with both declining in accuracy as the difficulty of the task increases. The paper concludes with an exploratory qualitative analysis of the factors involved in human diversity judgments to guide future research in this emerging area. Kazjon Grace, Francisco Ibarrola, Jody Watts, Shu Takahashi, Parth Bhargava, Eduardo Velloso |
CHI | 5 |