REVIEW 2 cited by
$\texttt{ModSCAN}$: Measuring Stereotypical Bias in Large Vision-Language Models from Vision and Language Modalities
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have been rapidly developed and widely used in various fields, but the (potential) stereotypical bias in the model is largely unexplored. In this study, we present a pioneering measurement framework, $\texttt{ModSCAN}$, to $\underline{SCAN}$ the stereotypical bias within LVLMs from both vision and language $\underline{Mod}$alities. $\texttt{ModSCAN}$ examines stereotypical biases with respect to two typical stereotypical attributes (gender and race) across three kinds of scenarios: occupations, descriptors, and persona traits. Our findings suggest that 1) the currently popular LVLMs show significant stereotype biases, with CogVLM emerging as the most biased model; 2) these stereotypical biases may stem from the inherent biases in the training dataset and pre-trained models; 3) the utilization of specific prompt prefixes (from both vision and language modalities) performs well in reducing stereotypical biases. We believe our work can serve as the foundation for understanding and addressing stereotypical bias in LVLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Prototypicality Bias Reveals Blindspots in Multimodal Evaluation Metrics
Prototypicality bias: common text-to-image metrics systematically prefer plausible-but-wrong images over correct non-prototypical ones; PROTOSCORE mitigates but does not eliminate the failure.
-
Explainability for Vision Foundation Models: A Survey
A structured review of 122 papers on explainability for vision foundation models, with a taxonomy and the finding that quantitative evaluation is rare (36%).
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.