Evaluating Visual and Cultural Interpretation: The K-Viscuit Benchmark with Human-VLM Collaboration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To create culturally inclusive vision-language models (VLMs), developing a benchmark that tests their ability to address culturally relevant questions is essential. Existing approaches typically rely on human annotators, making the process labor-intensive and creating a cognitive burden in generating diverse questions. To address this, we propose a semi-automated framework for constructing cultural VLM benchmarks, specifically targeting multiple-choice QA. This framework combines human-VLM collaboration, where VLMs generate questions based on guidelines, a small set of annotated examples, and relevant knowledge, followed by a verification process by native speakers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework through the creation of K-Viscuit, a dataset focused on Korean culture. Our experiments on this dataset reveal that open-source models lag behind proprietary ones in understanding Korean culture, highlighting key areas for improvement. We also present a series of further analyses, including human evaluation, augmenting VLMs with external knowledge, and the evaluation beyond multiple-choice QA. Our dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ddehun/k-viscuit.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it