Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 123 references

POET: Supporting Prompting Creativity and Personalization with Automated Expansion of Text-to-Image Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a text-to-image tool can find the repetitive visual patterns a model secretly favors, deliberately vary those patterns, and learn from user picks, so people exploring ideas see more diverse images and reach…

desk verdict A well-run HCI study on diversifying text-to-image output, but the automatic ICAD gains partly reflect the CLIP filter/evaluation loop. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13392 v2 pith:QTT4JKKE submitted 2025-04-18 cs.CV cs.HC

Evans Xu Han , Alice Qian Zhang , Haiyi Zhu , Hong Shen , Paul Pu Liang , Jane Hsieh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.HC
keywords text-to-imagegenerationpromptinversionhomogeneousdimensionscreativeideationoutputdiversificationpersonalizationCLIPsimilarityuserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces POET, a tool for the ideation stage of creative work with text-to-image models. POET automatically finds the shared, homogeneous visual dimensions that a pretrained model tends to reproduce (for example, always drawing a bearded elderly man for "ancient artist"), then expands those dimensions into alternatives while filtering to stay close to the user's original intent. A user study with 28 participants across four creative scenarios found that people rated POET image sets as more different from each other, reported higher satisfaction, and needed about 0.85 fewer rounds (and 1.35 fewer with personalization) to reach satisfaction. The value, if the claim holds, is that creative users get more varied starting points without doing the tedious work of rewriting prompts, and the system can later tailor expansions to a user's expressed likes and dislikes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is prompt inversion: initializing a sequence of learnable token embeddings from the user's prompt, optimizing them against the CLIP text–image similarity objective over the generated image set, and projecting the continuous embeddings back to nearest neighbor discrete tokens at every step so the result is human-readable. This inverted prompt reveals the model's tacit homogeneous dimensions. A second machinery is the filtering function $F(\hat{t}) = \mathrm{Div}(\hat{t}) + \lambda \cdot \mathrm{Sim}_{\text{text}}(\hat{t}, t_0)$, where $\mathrm{Div}$ rewards images that differ from the homogeneous pattern while still resembling the original prompt, and $\mathrm{Sim}_{\text{text}}$ keeps the candidate prompt close to the user's original wording. Together they decide which expanded prompts enter the displayed image set.

What would settle it

Have independent human raters score pairwise diversity on images that POET selects as diverse and images it filters out as redundant; if human scores do not separate the two groups, the filtering function is optimizing the wrong signal, and replacing the CLIP-based filter with human diversity judgments should make the iteration savings disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the overly similar images a text-to-image model produces for one prompt can be traced to a small set of latent "dimensions of homogeneity," and those dimensions can be read out automatically by inverting the prompt: optimize a sequence of token embeddings, projected onto the model's discrete vocabulary, to maximize CLIP similarity to the generated image set. Once the inverted prompt is read as text (e.g., "considering experienced beard apostle writing"), an LLM expands each semantic category into alternative attributes, and a filtering function trades diversity against semantic fidelity to the original prompt. Adding a feedback loop, where the user rates images and marks favorites and least-liked outputs, conditions future expansions on a stored preference profile. In the authors' evaluations, this pipeline outperforms both the base model and the base model with personalization but without dimension discovery on perceived diversity, satisfaction, and rounds to satisfaction.

Load-bearing premise

The system treats CLIP cosine similarity as the measure of both sameness and diversity, so if CLIP's notion of visual similarity does not track what creative users mean by variety, the discovered dimensions and measured diversity gains could reflect the embedding space rather than the images themselves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Creative users in the studied domains (advertising, tourism, character design, interior design) can start from one prompt and see a deliberately broadened set of options, rather than several near-duplicates of the same concept.
  • The number of prompt rewrites needed to reach satisfaction drops measurably, which reduces the burden of prompt engineering for novices.
  • Personalization can be achieved without fine-tuning model weights, by conditioning a language model on a user preference profile built from satisfaction ratings and favorite and least-favorite images.
  • Automatic homogeneous-dimension identification beats both open and closed vision-language models at the same task in this setup and is cheaper, because the inversion runs once over the image set instead of querying a multimodal model repeatedly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same inversion-plus-expansion loop could be applied to other generative backbones or modalities, so long as a CLIP-like text–image embedding space exists; the paper fixes one backbone, so cross-model generality is not tested.
  • Because the system's notion of diversity is defined by CLIP distances, its gains may be strongest for attributes CLIP can see (demographics, setting, activity) and weakest for subtle stylistic or conceptual differences human creatives care about; a human study swapping in different diversity criteria would settle this.
  • If CLIP's bias toward Western or stereotypical attributes is what drives the homogeneous dimensions, POET could in principle amplify or counteract specific stereotypes depending on how the LLM samples alternatives; the paper documents resistance to stereotypes but does not directly aim the expansion at specific axes of bias.
  • The 28-user study is modest in scale, so the size of the iteration savings (0.85–1.35 rounds) should be treated as an early estimate rather than a stable effect size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents POET, a real-time text-to-image generation tool that automatically discovers homogeneous dimensions in generated image sets via a novel prompt-inversion method, expands prompts along those dimensions using an LLM under a CLIP-based diversity-fidelity filter, and personalizes future expansions from user feedback. The authors evaluate the system with automatic metrics (ICAD, inference cost) on 1,000 Flickr30K prompts and with a within-subjects user study (N=28) across four creative scenarios. They report that POET produces image sets users perceive as significantly more diverse (Phase 1), helps users reach satisfaction in fewer prompt iterations (marginal in Phase 2, significant in Phase 3), and that POET-Personalize outperforms Base-Personalize on rounds and satisfaction. The paper also contributes a project page with code and discusses implications for pluralistic, user-centered generative tools.

Significance. If the findings hold, POET is a meaningful step toward creativity support tools that push back against normative and homogeneous outputs of text-to-image models. The prompt-inversion method for discovering interpretable homogeneous dimensions is a novel and potentially reusable contribution, and the user study is generally well designed with counterbalanced conditions, mixed-methods analysis, and a clear focus on ideation-stage needs. The Phase 1 perceived-diversity result is strong (coefficient 2.28, p<0.001) and provides independent human evidence supporting the diversity claim. The paper also ships code and a project page, aiding reproducibility. However, the automatic evaluation's reliance on CLIP without an explicitly independent metric, the marginal Phase 2 rounds result, and the confounded personalization comparison mean the strongest claims require careful revision before the contribution is fully convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.2, Figure 4, Table 1, and Eqs. (3)-(4)] The automatic ICAD evaluation is potentially circular with the filtering objective. The paper does not specify the feature space in which ICAD is computed, while the filter in Eqs. (3)-(4) uses CLIP text-image similarity for both the diversity term Div(t_hat) = Sim_image(t0, I_hat) - Sim_image(t1, I_hat) and the fidelity term Sim_text(t_hat, t0). If ICAD is also computed in a CLIP embedding space, the reported gains (Base 0.24, POET w/o HDI 0.41, POET 0.48) partially reflect the selection procedure's own objective rather than an independent measure of visual diversity. Please specify the embeddings used for ICAD; if they are CLIP-based, add a complementary CLIP-free diversity metric (e.g., LPIPS or pixel-level distance) and report error bars or significance tests for the ICAD values, which are currently single numbers without uncertainty.
  2. [§5.3.2, Table 4] The Phase 2 rounds coefficient for POET vs Base is -0.857 with p<0.1 (indicated by the dot), which is not significant at the conventional 0.05 level. The text states that "POET was able to help users achieve satisfiable results in fewer rounds than Base in Phase 2" without qualifying this as a marginal trend. Please report the exact p-value and explicitly characterize this as a marginal result, or temper the claim in the abstract and conclusions, which currently state that POET helps users "reach satisfaction in fewer prompts" as a general finding.
  3. [§5.1.3, Table 5] The Phase 3 comparison of POET-Personalize vs Base-Personalize does not isolate the contribution of personalization, because Base-Personalize already includes a personalization mechanism on the base model. The observed reduction in rounds (1.35, p<0.01) and higher satisfaction may be driven entirely by POET's homogeneous-dimension expansion, not by the personalization step. To support the personalization contribution, add a POET vs POET-Personalize comparison (or a fully factorial design), or explicitly reframe the Phase 3 result as evaluating the combined POET-plus-personalization system rather than the personalization component alone.
  4. [§4.2.3 and §5.3] The claim that POET maintains "fidelity and consistency with user intent" is not evaluated by users. The only consistency evidence is qualitative (Figure 7), and the filter relies on CLIP similarity as a proxy. The user study measures perceived diversity and satisfaction but not how well the generated images match the original prompt. Please include a user-rated fidelity measure (e.g., a match or preservation rating for each generated image against the original prompt) or revise the claim to specify that fidelity is defined in terms of CLIP similarity rather than human judgment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Algorithm 1] The description of prompt inversion says the original prompt is padded with random tokens, but Algorithm 1 initializes Z from the original tokens without explicitly showing the padding step; please clarify how the padded tokens enter the initialization and how m relates to the padded length.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The projection function has inconsistent notation: the denominator uses ||e_i|| while the argmax is over e; the index in the denominator should match the variable being projected.
  3. [Figure 4] The y-axis is labeled only "ICAD"; please add the units or note that it is unitless, and include error bars or shaded intervals for the reported means.
  4. [Table 1] The ICAD values are reported as point estimates without variability; please report the standard deviation or confidence interval across the 1,000 prompts.
  5. [§5.3.2 and elsewhere] The repeated use of "satisfiable" is incorrect in this context; the intended word is "satisfying" or "satisfactory" (e.g., "more satisfying results," "satisfactory results").
  6. [§5.1.2] The maximum of five re-prompts may create a ceiling effect that compresses differences in the number of rounds; please discuss this limitation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: central claims rest on independent human ratings; automatic ICAD embedding is unspecified.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are: POET discovers homogeneous dimensions via prompt inversion, expands prompts with an LLM under a CLIP-based filter, and users perceive more diversity and reach satisfaction in fewer iterations. The first two are algorithmic constructions, not predictions; the third is supported by an independent 28-user study in which participants rated pairwise differences (Phase 1) and reported satisfaction and iteration counts (Phases 2-3). Those human ratings do not reduce to the CLIP filter: the filter in Equations (3)-(4) ranks candidate prompts by CLIP text-image similarity, while the user outcomes are measured in human perception. The automatic ICAD evaluation (Figure 4, Table 1) is secondary supporting evidence, and the paper does not specify the embedding used to compute ICAD; if it used the same OpenCLIP-ViT/H encoder as the filter, part of the automatic diversity gain could overlap with the selection objective. That is a validity or reproducibility concern, not an exhibited reduction, so under the hard rules it is not scored as circularity. The author-overlapping citations (e.g., [30], [55], [63], [109]) appear in related work or limitations and are not load-bearing; there is no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem forcing the conclusions. The user-facing central claims are therefore self-contained against the empirical study.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central pipeline depends on CLIP as the semantic oracle for homogeneity, diversity, and fidelity; on discrete nearest-neighbor projection retaining meaning; on LLM grouping and expansion; and on profile-based conditioning. It has two tuned constants (m=15, lambda=0.1) and several implementation constants. No new physical or conceptual entities with independent falsifiable handles are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • m (number of inverted token embeddings) = 15
    Set based on empirical findings to balance descriptiveness and coherence; no ablation shown. It controls the granularity of discovered homogeneity.
  • lambda (diversity-fidelity weight) = 0.1
    Tunable hyperparameter in the filter F(t_hat)=Div+lambda*Sim_text; no sensitivity analysis. It directly controls the diversity versus consistency tradeoff that is central to the claim.
  • n (images per prompt) = 10
    All generation and inversion assumes a fixed set of 10 images; homogeneity statistics depend on this set size.
  • Prompt inversion optimizer settings = lr=0.1, 1000 steps, batch size 2
    Implementation constants chosen without ablation; not central to the claim but required for reproduction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CLIP text-image similarity is a faithful proxy for shared visual attributes and for diversity and fidelity.
    Eq. 1 optimizes inverted tokens against CLIP similarity, while Eqs. 3-4 select expanded prompts by CLIP text-image similarities. If CLIP misses attributes users care about, the discovered dimensions and filter are misaligned.
  • domain assumption Projecting continuous embeddings to nearest discrete vocabulary tokens preserves enough semantic meaning to reveal homogeneity.
    Eq. 2 maps Z to discrete tokens; the paper admits some gibberish tokens and assumes LLMs ignore them. If the projection drops semantics, t1 is not a reliable homogeneity caption.
  • domain assumption An LLM can categorize homogeneous dimensions into semantic groups and sample diverse replacements while preserving original prompt semantics.
    Section 3.2 delegates grouping, sampling, and rewriting to GPT-4o; the failure mode is semantic drift or stereotyped replacements.
  • domain assumption Summarizing user likes, dislikes, and satisfaction into a text profile conditions the LLM to personalize effectively.
    Section 3.3 stores feedback in a prompt context without fine-tuning, so personalization depends entirely on LLM instruction following.
  • domain assumption ICAD computed from image embeddings is a valid measure of perceived visual diversity.
    Section 4.2.2 uses ICAD without stating the embedding; if it uses CLIP, the evaluation shares the model used in optimization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of POET: Supporting Prompting Creativity and Personalization with Automated Expansion of Text-to-Image Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTT4JKKE

@misc{pith2026250413392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: POET: Supporting Prompting Creativity and Personalization with Automated Expansion of Text-to-Image Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTT4JKKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13392}
}
read the original abstract

State-of-the-art visual generative AI tools hold immense potential to assist users in the early ideation stages of creative tasks -- offering the ability to generate (rather than search for) novel and unprecedented (instead of existing) images of considerable quality that also adhere to boundless combinations of user specifications. However, many large-scale text-to-image systems are designed for broad applicability, yielding conventional output that may limit creative exploration. They also employ interaction methods that may be difficult for beginners. Given that creative end users often operate in diverse, context-specific ways that are often unpredictable, more variation and personalization are necessary. We introduce POET, a real-time interactive tool that (1) automatically discovers dimensions of homogeneity in text-to-image generative models, (2) expands these dimensions to diversify the output space of generated images, and (3) learns from user feedback to personalize expansions. An evaluation with 28 users spanning four creative task domains demonstrated POET's ability to generate results with higher perceived diversity and help users reach satisfaction in fewer prompts during creative tasks, thereby prompting them to deliberate and reflect more on a wider range of possible produced results during the co-creative process. Focusing on visual creativity, POET offers a first glimpse of how interaction techniques of future text-to-image generation tools may support and align with more pluralistic values and the needs of end users during the ideation stages of their work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Despite advances in generative AI, current output spaces and prompting workflows are not designed to accommodate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Image generation pipeline of our proposed system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Evaluation of image diversity with ICAD (the av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison with GPT-4o • POET pipeline with GPT-4o serving as the HDI strategy. • POET, using prompt inversion as the HDI strategy. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diversity comparison to Base model. The Base exhibits reduced diversity, while POET consistently maintains diversity in subject and context across different prompts. For example, tourist destinations vary widely, dog breeds and backgrounds are diverse, and the styles o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Images generated from POET are diverse but con￾sistent to the original prompt. The filtered images using ho￾mogeneous dimensions are similar to the original image set. entries. When participants stopped iterating on the prompt (after reaching satisfaction or 5 rounds),…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interfaces - Phase 1: rating image differences (left). Phase 3: During each round of prompting, participants were asked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase 1-Image Difference Rating. Experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt and result images where P26 appreciated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: P8 decided to “go crazy” by entirely rewriting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Several participants attempted to break out of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmed M Abuzuraiq and Philippe Pasquier. 2024. Towards Personalizing Generative AI with Small Data for Co-Creation in the Visual Arts.. In IUI workshops

    2024

  2. [2]

    Krzysztof Adamkiewicz, Paweł Wojciech Woźniak, Julia Dominiak, Andrzej Romanowski, Jakob Karolus, and Stanislav Frolov. 2025. PromptMap: An Alter- native Interaction Style for AI-Based Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 1162–1176

    2025

  3. [3]

    Nantheera Anantrasirichai and David Bull. 2022. Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: a review. Artificial intelligence review 55, 1 (2022), 589–656

    2022

  4. [4]

    Mohammadreza Armandpour, Ali Sadeghian, Huangjie Zheng, Amir Sadeghian, and Mingyuan Zhou. 2023. Re-imagine the negative prompt algorithm: Trans- form 2d diffusion into 3d, alleviate janus problem and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04968 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Kristin A Bartlett and Jorge D Camba. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in product design education: Navigating concerns of originality and ethics. (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Myra Cheng, Debora Nozza, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Dan Jurafsky, James Zou, and Aylin Caliskan. 2023. Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demo- graphic stereotypes at large scale. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1493–1504

    2023

  7. [7]

    Charlotte Bird, Eddie Ungless, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. 2023. Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Models. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Montréal, QC, Canada) (AIES ’23). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 396–410. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604722

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Stephen Brade, Bryan Wang, Mauricio Sousa, Sageev Oore, and Tovi Gross- man. 2023. Promptify: Text-to-Image Generation through Interactive Prompt Exploration with Large Language Models. arXiv:2304.09337 [cs.HC] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2304.09337

    arXiv 2023

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Alice Cai, Steven R Rick, Jennifer L Heyman, Yanxia Zhang, Alexandre Fil- ipowicz, Matthew Hong, Matt Klenk, and Thomas Malone. 2023. DesignAID: Using Generative AI and Semantic Diversity for Design Inspiration. In Pro- ceedings of The ACM Collective Intelligence Conference (D...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Robert T Carter, Jessica M Forsyth, Silvia L Mazzula, and Brandon Williams

  3. [11]

    Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chin- may Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J. Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chin- may Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry. 2023. The Prompt Artists. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, USA) (C&C ’23). Association for Computing Machin...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Junming Chen, Zichun Shao, and Bin Hu. 2023. Generating interior design from text: A new diffusion model-based method for efficient creative design. Buildings 13, 7 (2023), 1861

    2023

  5. [13]

    Junsong Chen, Yue Wu, Simian Luo, Enze Xie, Sayak Paul, Ping Luo, Hang Zhao, and Zhenguo Li. 2024. Pixart-{\delta}: Fast and controllable image generation with latent consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05252 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zijie Chen, Lichao Zhang, Fangsheng Weng, Lili Pan, and Zhenzhong Lan

  7. [15]

    Marc Cheong, Ehsan Abedin, Marinus Ferreira, Ritsaart Reimann, Shalom Chalson, Pamela Robinson, Joanne Byrne, Leah Ruppanner, Mark Alfano, and Colin Klein. 2024. Investigating Gender and Racial Biases in DALL-E Mini Images. ACM J. Responsib. Comput. 1, 2, Article 13 (June 2024...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Mehdi Cherti, Romain Beaumont, Ross Wightman, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Cade Gordon, Christoph Schuhmann, Ludwig Schmidt, and Jenia Jitsev

  9. [17]

    Aditya Chinchure, Pushkar Shukla, Gaurav Bhatt, Kiri Salij, Kartik Hosanagar, Leonid Sigal, and Matthew Turk. 2024. Tibet: Identifying and evaluating biases in text-to-image generative models. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 429–446

    2024

  10. [18]

    Jaemin Cho, Abhay Zala, and Mohit Bansal. 2023. Dall-eval: Probing the reason- ing skills and social biases of text-to-image generation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 3043–3054

    2023

  11. [19]

    Jaemin Cho, Abhay Zala, and Mohit Bansal. 2023. DALL-Eval: Probing the Reasoning Skills and Social Biases of Text-to-Image Generation Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 3043–3054

    2023

  12. [20]

    DaEun Choi, Sumin Hong, Jeongeon Park, John Joon Young Chung, and Juho Kim. 2024. CreativeConnect: Supporting Reference Recombination for Graphic Design Ideation with Generative AI. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, U...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2013. Teaching thematic analysis: Overcom- ing challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The psychologist 26, 2 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Vittoria Dentella, Fritz Günther, and Evelina Leivada. 2023. Systematic testing of three Language Models reveals low language accuracy, absence of response stability, and a yes-response bias.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 51 (2023), e2309583120

    2023

  15. [23]

    Moreno D’Incà, Elia Peruzzo, Massimiliano Mancini, Dejia Xu, Vidit Goel, Xingqian Xu, Zhangyang Wang, Humphrey Shi, and Nicu Sebe. 2024. OpenBias: Open-set Bias Detection in Text-to-Image Generative Models. arXiv:2404.07990 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07990

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Marco Donnarumma. 2022. Against the norm: othering and otherness in AI aesthetics. Digital Culture & Society 8, 2 (2022), 39–66

    2022

  17. [25]

    Xianzhe Fan, Zihan Wu, Chun Yu, Fenggui Rao, Weinan Shi, and Teng Tu. 2024. ContextCam: Bridging Context Awareness with Creative Human-AI Image Co-Creation. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Associati...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Xianzhe Fan, Qing Xiao, Xuhui Zhou, Jiaxin Pei, Maarten Sap, Zhicong Lu, and Hong Shen. 2024. User-Driven Value Alignment: Understanding Users’ Percep- tions and Strategies for Addressing Biased and Discriminatory Statements in AI Companions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00862 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2022. An image is worth one word: Per- sonalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sourojit Ghosh and Aylin Caliskan. 2023. ’Person’== Light-skinned, Western Man, and Sexualization of Women of Color: Stereotypes in Stable Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19981 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Evans Xu Han, Linghao Jin, Xiaofeng Liu, and Paul Pu Liang. 2025. Progressive Compositionality in Text-to-Image Generative Models. arXiv:2410.16719 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16719

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yaru Hao, Zewen Chi, Li Dong, and Furu Wei. 2023. Optimizing prompts for text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (NIPS ’23). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Catherine E Harnois, João L Bastos, Mary E Campbell, and Verna M Keith. 2019. Measuring perceived mistreatment across diverse social groups: An evaluation of the Everyday Discrimination Scale. Social Science & Medicine 232 (2019), 298–306

    2019

  25. [33]

    Jochen Hartmann, Yannick Exner, and Samuel Domdey. 2025. The power of generative marketing: Can generative AI create superhuman visual marketing content? International Journal of Research in Marketing 42, 1 (2025), 13–31

    2025

  26. [34]

    Iikka Hauhio. 2024. Enhancing Human Creativity with Aptly Uncontrollable Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computa- tional Creativity. Association for Computational Creativity (ACC)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zecheng He, Bo Sun, Felix Juefei-Xu, Haoyu Ma, Ankit Ramchandani, Vincent Cheung, Siddharth Shah, Anmol Kalia, Harihar Subramanyam, Alireza Zareian, et al. 2024. Imagine yourself: Tuning-free personalized image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13346 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kaylee Burns, Kate Saenko, Trevor Darrell, and Anna Rohrbach. 2018. Women also snowboard: Overcoming bias in captioning models. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 793–811

    2018

  29. [37]

    Jennifer L Heyman, Steven R Rick, Gianni Giacomelli, Haoran Wen, Robert Laubacher, Nancy Taubenslag, Max Knicker, Younes Jeddi, Pranav Ragupathy, Jared Curhan, et al. 2024. Supermind Ideator: How scaffolding Human-AI collab- oration can increase creativity. In Proceedings of t...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Michael Alvarez, and Anima Anandkumar

    Roy Jiang, Rafal Kocielnik, Adhithya Prakash Saravanan, Pengrui Han, R. Michael Alvarez, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Empowering Domain Experts to Detect Social Bias in Generative AI with User-Friendly Interfaces. In XAI in Action: Past, Present, and Future Applications . https...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yu Jin and Kyungho Lee. 2024. Human-AI co-creation in fashion design ideation and sketching: an empirical study. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), CVFAD Workshop, Seattle, USA

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yu Jin, Juhyeok Yoon, James Self, and Kyungho Lee. 2024. Understanding Fashion Designers’ Behavior Using Generative AI for Early-Stage Concept Ideation and Revision. Archives of Design Research 37, 3 (2024), 25–45

    2024

  33. [41]

    Takuhiro Kaneko, Kaoru Hiramatsu, and Kunio Kashino. 2017. Generative attribute controller with conditional filtered generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 6089–6098

    2017

  34. [42]

    Sara Kingsley, Jiayin Zhi, Wesley Hanwen Deng, Jaimie Lee, Sizhe Zhang, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth Holstein, Jason I Hong, Tianshi Li, and Hong Shen. 2024. Investigating What Factors Influence Users’ Rating of Harmful Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination. In Proceedings of the A...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Hyung-Kwon Ko, Gwanmo Park, Hyeon Jeon, Jaemin Jo, Juho Kim, and Jin- wook Seo. 2023. Large-scale text-to-image generation models for visual artists’ creative works. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 919–933

    2023

  36. [44]

    Hyung-Kwon Ko, Gwanmo Park, Hyeon Jeon, Jaemin Jo, Juho Kim, and Jinwook Seo. 2023. Large-scale Text-to-Image Generation Models for Visual Artists’ Creative Works. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(IUI ’2...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Jungryun Kwon, Eui-Chul Jung, and Jiheon Kim. 2024. Designer-Generative AI Ideation Process: Generating Images Aligned with Designer Intent in Early- Stage Concept Exploration in Product Design. Archives of Design Research 37, 3 (2024), 7–23

    2024

  38. [46]

    Black Forest Labs. 2024. FLUX. https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux

    2024

  39. [47]

    Guipeng Lan, Shuai Xiao, Jiachen Yang, and Jiabao Wen. 2024. Generative model perception rectification algorithm for trade-off between diversity and quality. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 38. 13328–13336

    2024

  40. [48]

    Nam Le and Jean-Marc Odobez. 2018. Robust and Discriminative Speaker Embedding via Intra-Class Distance Variance Regularization. In Interspeech

    2018

  41. [49]

    Yu-Hsu Lee and Chun-Yao Chiu. 2023. The impact of AI text-to-image generator on product styling design. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 502–515

    2023

  42. [50]

    Jingyi Li, Sonia Hashim, and Jennifer Jacobs. 2021. What We Can Learn From Visual Artists About Software Development. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. BLIP-2: Boot- strapping Language-Image Pre-training with Frozen Image Encoders and Large Language Models. arXiv:2301.12597 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12597

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jingyi Li, Eric Rawn, Jacob Ritchie, Jasper Tran O’Leary, and Sean Follmer. 2023. Beyond the Artifact: Power as a Lens for Creativity Support Tools. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA)(UIST ’23). Ass...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2023. Personalized Prompt Learning for Explainable Recommendation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 41, 4, Article 103 (March 2023), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580488

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Paul Pu Liang, Chiyu Wu, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

  47. [55]

    Paul Pu Liang, Amir Zadeh, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2024. Foundations & trends in multimodal machine learning: Principles, challenges, and open questions. Comput. Surveys 56, 10 (2024), 1–42

    2024

  48. [56]

    Youwei Liang, Junfeng He, Gang Li, Peizhao Li, Arseniy Klimovskiy, Nicholas Carolan, Jiao Sun, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Sarah Young, Feng Yang, Junjie Ke, Krishna- murthy Dj Dvijotham, Katie Collins, Yiwen Luo, Yang Li, Kai J Kohlhoff, Deepak Ramachandran, and Vidhya Navalpakkam. 202...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual Instruction Tuning

    2023

  50. [58]

    Vivian Liu, Han Qiao, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Opal: Multimodal image gener- ation for news illustration. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–17

    2022

  51. [59]

    Vivian Liu, Jo Vermeulen, George Fitzmaurice, and Justin Matejka. 2023. 3DALL- E: Integrating text-to-image AI in 3D design workflows. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM designing interactive systems conference . 1955–1977

    2023

  52. [60]

    LING Long, CHEN Xinyi, WEN Ruoyu, LI Toby Jia-Jun, and LC Ray. 2024. Sketchar: Supporting Character Design and Illustration Prototyping Using Generative AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CHI PLAY (2024), 337

    2024

  53. [61]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. arXiv:1711.05101 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sasha Luccioni, Christopher Akiki, Margaret Mitchell, and Yacine Jernite. 2023. Stable bias: Evaluating societal representations in diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 56338–56351

    2023

  55. [63]

    Yiwei Lyu, Paul Pu Liang, Zihao Deng, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2022. Dime: Fine-grained interpretations of multimodal models via disentangled local explanations. InProceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 455–467

    2022

  56. [64]

    Shweta Mahajan, Tanzila Rahman, Kwang Moo Yi, and Leonid Sigal. 2023. Prompting Hard or Hardly Prompting: Prompt Inversion for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv:2312.12416 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12416

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Safa Messaoud, David Forsyth, and Alexander G Schwing. 2018. Structural consistency and controllability for diverse colorization. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . 596–612

    2018

  58. [66]

    Wenyi Mo, Tianyu Zhang, Yalong Bai, Bing Su, Ji-Rong Wen, and Qing Yang. 2024. Dynamic Prompt Optimizing for Text-to-Image Generation. arXiv:2404.04095 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04095

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ron Mokady, Omer Tov, Michal Yarom, Oran Lang, Inbar Mosseri, Tali Dekel, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Michal Irani. 2022. Self-Distilled StyleGAN: Towards Generation from Internet Photos. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceed- ings (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (SIGGRAPH ’22) . Associati...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2020. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Ranjita Naik and Besmira Nushi. 2023. Social Biases through the Text-to-Image Generation Lens. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Montréal, QC, Canada) (AIES ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 786–808. https:/...

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    Thao Nguyen, Haotian Liu, Yuheng Li, Mu Cai, Utkarsh Ojha, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. Yo’LLaVA: Your Personalized Language and Vision Assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09400 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Goucher, and etc

    OpenAI, :, Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P. Goucher, and etc. 2024. GPT-4o System Card. arXiv:2410.21276 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Jonas Oppenlaender. 2022. The Creativity of Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (Academic Mindtrek ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569...

    2022

  65. [74]

    Jonas Oppenlaender. 2024. A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation. Behaviour & Information Technology 43, 15 (2024), 3763–3776

    2024

  66. [75]

    Jonas Oppenlaender, Rhema Linder, and Johanna Silvennoinen. 2024. Prompting AI art: An investigation into the creative skill of prompt engineering. Interna- tional journal of human–computer interaction (2024), 1–23

    2024

  67. [76]

    Jonas Oppenlaender, Johanna Silvennoinen, Ville Paananen, and Aku Visuri

  68. [77]

    Jahna Otterbacher. 2018. Addressing social bias in information retrieval. In International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages. Springer, 121–127

    2018

  69. [78]

    Ville Paananen, Jonas Oppenlaender, and Aku Visuri. 2024. Using text-to- image generation for architectural design ideation. International Journal of Architectural Computing 22, 3 (2024), 458–474

    2024

  70. [79]

    Maria-Teresa De Rosa Palmini and Eva Cetinic. 2024. Patterns of Creativ- ity: How User Input Shapes AI-Generated Visual Diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06768 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Lianyu Pang, Jian Yin, Baoquan Zhao, Feize Wu, Fu Lee Wang, Qing Li, and Xudong Mao. 2024. Attndreambooth: Towards text-aligned personalized text- to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 39869–39900

    2024

  72. [81]

    Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M

    Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Ju- lia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2016. Flickr30k Entities: Collect- ing Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Image-to-Sentence Models. arXiv:1505.04870 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04870

    2016 arXiv

  73. [82]

    In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference

    Perceptions and realities of text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference . 279–288

  74. [83]

    Maxwell Rabb. 2025. Why AI Art Is Winning over Young Collectors. Artsy (2025). https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-ai-art-winning-young- collectors Accessed: 2025-03-31

    2025

  75. [84]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. arXiv:2103.000...

    2021 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Rad- ford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research, V...

    2021

  77. [86]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Rad- ford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International conference on machine learning . Pmlr, 8821–8831

    2021

  78. [87]

    Ali Razavi, Aaron Van den Oord, and Oriol Vinyals. 2019. Generating diverse high-fidelity images with vq-vae-2. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  79. [88]

    Steven Jige Quan. 2022. Urban-GAN: An artificial intelligence-aided compu- tation system for plural urban design. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 49, 9 (2022), 2500–2515

    2022

  80. [89]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 10674–10685. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688....

    2022

  81. [90]

    Victor Schetinger, Sara Di Bartolomeo, Mennatallah El-Assady, Andrew McNutt, Matthias Miller, João Paulo Apolinário Passos, and Jane Lydia Adams. 2023. Doom or deliciousness: Challenges and opportunities for visualization in the age of generative models. In Computer Graphics F...

    2023

  82. [91]

    Lam, Joey Hejna, Yijia Shao, Hyundong Justin Cho, Michael S

    Omar Shaikh, Michelle S. Lam, Joey Hejna, Yijia Shao, Hyundong Justin Cho, Michael S. Bernstein, and Diyi Yang. 2025. Aligning Language Models with Demonstrated Feedback. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1qGkuxI9UX

    2025

  83. [92]

    Hong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2021. Every- day algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  84. [93]

    Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generation. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Na...

    2019

  85. [94]

    Tore Andre Ringvold, Ingri Strand, Peter Haakonsen, and Kari Saasen Strand

  86. [95]

    In The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023 , Vol

    AI text-to-image generation in Art and design teacher education: a creative tool or a hindrance to future creativity?. In The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023 , Vol. 1

    2023

  87. [96]

    Rachel Skilton and Alison Cardinal. 2024. Inclusive Prompt Engineering: A Methodology for Hacking Biased AI Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (Fairfax, VA, USA) (SIGDOC ’24). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2024

  88. [97]

    Taylor Sorensen, Jared Moore, Jillian Fisher, Mitchell Gordon, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Christopher Michael Rytting, Andre Ye, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Tim Althoff, and Yejin Choi. 2024. Position: a roadmap to plural- istic alignment. In Proceedings of the 41st Inte...

    2024

  89. [98]

    Sarah Sterman, Molly Jane Nicholas, and Eric Paulos. 2022. Towards Creative Version Control. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 336 (Nov. 2022), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555756

    2022 doi

  90. [99]

    Miriam Sturdee, Makayla Lewis, Angelika Strohmayer, Katta Spiel, Nantia Koulidou, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Josh Urban Davis. 2021. A Plurality of Practices: Artistic Narratives in HCI Research. In Proceedings of the 13th Con- ference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, ...

    2021

  91. [100]

    Miriam Sturdee, Makayla Lewis, Angelika Strohmayer, Katta Spiel, Nantia Koulidou, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Josh Urban Davis. 2021. A plurality of practices: artistic narratives in HCI research. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 1–14

    2021

  92. [101]

    Jing Shi, Wei Xiong, Zhe Lin, and Hyun Joon Jung. 2024. InstantBooth: Person- alized Text-to-Image Generation without Test-Time Finetuning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 8543–8552

    2024

  93. [103]

    Benedikte Wallace, Kristian Nymoen, Jim Torresen, and Charles Patrick Martin

  94. [104]

    Ziyu Wan, Jingbo Zhang, Dongdong Chen, and Jing Liao. 2021. High-Fidelity Pluralistic Image Completion With Transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 4692–4701

    2021

  95. [105]

    Jiarui Wang, Huiyu Duan, Jing Liu, Shi Chen, Xiongkuo Min, and Guangtao Zhai. 2023. Aigciqa2023: A large-scale image quality assessment database for ai generated images: from the perspectives of quality, authenticity and corre- spondence. In CAAI International Conference on Ar...

    2023

  96. [106]

    Wen-Fan Wang, Chien-Ting Lu, Nil Ponsa Campanyà, Bing-Yu Chen, and Mike Y Chen. 2025. AIdeation: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Ideation System for Concept Designers. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2025)

    2025

  97. [107]

    Zhijie Wang, Yuheng Huang, Da Song, Lei Ma, and Tianyi Zhang. 2024. PromptCharm: Text-to-Image Generation through Multi-modal Prompting and Refinement. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24) . Association...

    2024

  98. [108]

    Sangho Suh, Meng Chen, Bryan Min, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Haijun Xia. 2024. Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation. In Proceedings of the CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 1–2...

    2024

  99. [109]

    Jordan Taylor, Joel Mire, Franchesca Spektor, Alicia DeVrio, Maarten Sap, Haiyi Zhu, and Sarah Fox. 2025. Un-Straightening Generative AI: How Queer Artists Surface and Challenge the Normativity of Generative AI Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09805 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  100. [110]

    David R Williams, Yan Yu, James S Jackson, and Norman B Anderson. 1997. Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 3 (1997), 335–351. https: //doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305

    1997 doi

  101. [111]

    Digital Creativity 35, 2 (2024), 125–142

    Breaking from realism: exploring the potential of glitch in AI-generated dance. Digital Creativity 35, 2 (2024), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268. 2024.2327006 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2024.2327006

    2024

  102. [112]

    Yiqing Wu, Ruobing Xie, Yongchun Zhu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Xu Zhang, Leyu Lin, and Qing He. 2024. Personalized prompt for sequential recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36, 7 (2024), 3376–3389

    2024

  103. [113]

    Qing Xiao, Xianzhe Fan, Felix M Simon, Bingbing Zhang, and Motahhare Eslami

  104. [114]

    Tianjun Zhang, Yi Zhang, Vibhav Vineet, Neel Joshi, and Xin Wang. 2023. Con- trollable text-to-image generation with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18583 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Eric Zhou and Dokyun Lee. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art. PNAS nexus 3, 3 (2024), pgae052

    2024

  106. [116]

    Yuxin Wen, Neel Jain, John Kirchenbauer, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. Hard Prompts Made Easy: Gradient-Based Discrete Optimization for Prompt Tuning and Discovery. arXiv:2302.03668 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03668

    2023 arXiv

  107. [117]

    Alex Wilf, Sihyun Shawn Lee, Paul Pu Liang, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2023. Think twice: Perspective-taking improves large language models’ theory-of- mind capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10227 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  108. [119]

    Roosa Wingström, Johanna Hautala, and Riina Lundman. 2024. Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal 36, 2 (2024), 177–193

    2024

  109. [122]

    It Might be Technically Impressive, But It’s Practically Useless to Us

    "It Might be Technically Impressive, But It’s Practically Useless to Us": Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities for Cross-Functional Collaboration around AI within the News Industry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12000 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  110. [125]

    Mingxu Zhou, Dengming Zhang, Weitao You, Ziqi Yu, Yifei Wu, Chenghao Pan, Huiting Liu, Tianyu Lao, and Pei Chen. 2024. StyleFactory: Towards Better Style Alignment in Image Creation through Style-Strength-Based Control and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symp...

    2024

  111. [2017]

    PloS one 12, 8 (2017), e0183356

    The prevalence of discrimination across racial groups in contemporary America: Results from a nationally representative sample of adults. PloS one 12, 8 (2017), e0183356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183356 Han et al

    2017 doi

  112. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1685

    2257–2261. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1685

    2018 doi

  113. [2021]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 6565–6576

  114. [2023]

    In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Reproducible Scaling Laws for Contrastive Language-Image Learning. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, 2818–2829. https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00276

    2023

  115. [2024]

    arXiv:2310.08129 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08129

    Tailored Visions: Enhancing Text-to-Image Generation with Personalized Prompt Rewriting. arXiv:2310.08129 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08129

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.