REVIEW 2 cited by
Toward Verifiable and Reproducible Human Evaluation for Text-to-Image Generation
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
Toward Verifiable and Reproducible Human Evaluation for Text-to-Image Generation
read the original abstract
Human evaluation is critical for validating the performance of text-to-image generative models, as this highly cognitive process requires deep comprehension of text and images. However, our survey of 37 recent papers reveals that many works rely solely on automatic measures (e.g., FID) or perform poorly described human evaluations that are not reliable or repeatable. This paper proposes a standardized and well-defined human evaluation protocol to facilitate verifiable and reproducible human evaluation in future works. In our pilot data collection, we experimentally show that the current automatic measures are incompatible with human perception in evaluating the performance of the text-to-image generation results. Furthermore, we provide insights for designing human evaluation experiments reliably and conclusively. Finally, we make several resources publicly available to the community to facilitate easy and fast implementations.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Z-Reward: Beyond Scalar Rewards by Internalizing Reasoning into Score Distributions
Z-Reward trains a 27B reasoning teacher VLM on score distributions via GDSO and distills it via RISD into a 9B student, reaching 89.6% and 88.6% human preference accuracy with 41.3% optimization gain over SFT baseline.
-
Z-Reward: Beyond Scalar Rewards by Internalizing Reasoning into Score Distributions
A teacher-student reward model learns reasoning-conditioned score distributions for text-to-image images, yielding ~89% preference accuracy and a 41% net human-preference gain when used for generator optimization.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.