Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Hues and Cues: Human vs. CLIP

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

arxiv 2509.02305 v2 pith:NX4WEPMO submitted 2025-09-02 cs.CV

Hues and Cues: Human vs. CLIP

classification cs.CV
keywords gameshumanmodelsboardclipdifferentapproachartificial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Playing games is inherently human, and a lot of games are created to challenge different human characteristics. However, these tasks are often left out when evaluating the human-like nature of artificial models. The objective of this work is proposing a new approach to evaluate artificial models via board games. To this effect, we test the color perception and color naming capabilities of CLIP by playing the board game Hues & Cues and assess its alignment with humans. Our experiments show that CLIP is generally well aligned with human observers, but our approach brings to light certain cultural biases and inconsistencies when dealing with different abstraction levels that are hard to identify with other testing strategies. Our findings indicate that assessing models with different tasks like board games can make certain deficiencies in the models stand out in ways that are difficult to test with the commonly used benchmarks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.