Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Generalized People Diversity: Learning a Human Perception-Aligned Diversity Representation for People Images

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 2401.14322 v1 pith:2WBQ2Y2W submitted 2024-01-25 cs.CV cs.CY

Generalized People Diversity: Learning a Human Perception-Aligned Diversity Representation for People Images

classification cs.CV cs.CY
keywords diversityhumanpeoplerepresentationpathspeople-relatedannotatorsbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Capturing the diversity of people in images is challenging: recent literature tends to focus on diversifying one or two attributes, requiring expensive attribute labels or building classifiers. We introduce a diverse people image ranking method which more flexibly aligns with human notions of people diversity in a less prescriptive, label-free manner. The Perception-Aligned Text-derived Human representation Space (PATHS) aims to capture all or many relevant features of people-related diversity, and, when used as the representation space in the standard Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) ranking algorithm, is better able to surface a range of types of people-related diversity (e.g. disability, cultural attire). PATHS is created in two stages. First, a text-guided approach is used to extract a person-diversity representation from a pre-trained image-text model. Then this representation is fine-tuned on perception judgments from human annotators so that it captures the aspects of people-related similarity that humans find most salient. Empirical results show that the PATHS method achieves diversity better than baseline methods, according to side-by-side ratings from human annotators.

discussion (0)

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