Offline Evaluation of Set-Based Text-to-Image Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text-to-Image (TTI) systems often support people during ideation, the early stages of a creative process when exposure to a broad set of relevant or partially relevant images can help explore the design space. Since ideation is an important subclass of TTI tasks, understanding how to quantitatively evaluate TTI systems according to how well they support ideation is crucial to promoting research and development for these users. However, existing evaluation metrics for TTI remain focused on distributional similarity metrics like Fréchet Inception Distance (FID). We take an alternative approach and, based on established methods from ranking evaluation, develop TTI evaluation metrics with explicit models of how users browse and interact with sets of spatially arranged generated images. Our proposed offline evaluation metrics for TTI not only capture how relevant generated images are with respect to the user's ideation need but also take into consideration the diversity and arrangement of the set of generated images. We analyze our proposed family of TTI metrics using human studies on image grids generated by three different TTI systems based on subsets of the widely used benchmarks such as MS-COCO captions and Localized Narratives as well as prompts used in naturalistic settings. Our results demonstrate that grounding metrics in how people use systems is an important and understudied area of benchmark design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".