Recent breakthroughs in diffusion models, multimodal pretraining, and efficient finetuning have led to an explosion of text-to-image generative models. Given human evaluation is expensive and difficult to scale, automated methods are critical for evaluating the increasingly large number of new models. However, most current automated evaluation metrics like FID or CLIPScore only offer a holistic measure of image quality or image-text alignment, and are unsuited for fine-grained or instance-level analysis. In this paper, we introduce GenEval, an object-focused framework to evaluate compositional image properties such as object co-occurrence, position, count, and color. We show that current object detection models can be leveraged to evaluate text-to-image models on a variety of generation tasks with strong human agreement, and that other discriminative vision models can be linked to this pipeline to further verify properties like object color. We then evaluate several open-source text-to-image models and analyze their relative generative capabilities on our benchmark. We find that recent models demonstrate significant improvement on these tasks, though they are still lacking in complex capabilities such as spatial relations and attribute binding. Finally, we demonstrate how GenEval might be used to help discover existing failure modes, in order to inform development of the next generation of text-to-image models. Our code to run the GenEval framework is publicly available at https://github.com/djghosh13/geneval.
Large multimodal datasets have been instrumental in recent breakthroughs such as CLIP, Stable Diffusion, and GPT-4. At the same time, datasets rarely receive the same research attention as model architectures or training algorithms. To address this shortcoming in the machine learning ecosystem, we introduce DataComp, a benchmark where the training code is fixed and researchers innovate by proposing new training sets. We provide a testbed for dataset experiments centered around a new candidate pool of 12.8B image-text pairs from Common Crawl. Participants in our benchmark design new filtering techniques or curate new data sources and then evaluate their new dataset by running our standardized CLIP training code and testing on 38 downstream test sets. Our benchmark consists of multiple scales, with four candidate pool sizes and associated compute budgets ranging from 12.8M to 12.8B samples seen during training. This multi-scale design facilitates the study of scaling trends and makes the benchmark accessible to researchers with varying resources. Our baseline experiments show that the DataComp workflow is a promising way of improving multimodal datasets. We introduce DataComp-1B, a dataset created by applying a simple filtering algorithm to the 12.8B candidate pool. The resulting 1.4B subset enables training a CLIP ViT-L/14 from scratch to 79.2% zero-shot accuracy on ImageNet. Our new ViT-L/14 model outperforms a larger ViT-g/14 trained on LAION-2B by 0.7 percentage points while requiring 9x less training compute. We also outperform OpenAI's CLIP ViT-L/14 by 3.7 percentage points, which is trained with the same compute budget as our model. These gains highlight the potential for improving model performance by carefully curating training sets. We view DataComp-1B as only the first step and hope that DataComp paves the way toward the next generation of multimodal datasets.
Overparameterization is shown to result in poor test accuracy on rare subgroups under a variety of settings where subgroup information is known. To gain a more complete picture, we consider the case where subgroup information is unknown. We investigate the effect of model size on worst-group generalization under empirical risk minimization (ERM) across a wide range of settings, varying: 1) architectures (ResNet, VGG, or BERT), 2) domains (vision or natural language processing), 3) model size (width or depth), and 4) initialization (with pre-trained or random weights). Our systematic evaluation reveals that increasing model size does not hurt, and may help, worst-group test performance under ERM across all setups. In particular, increasing pre-trained model size consistently improves performance on Waterbirds and MultiNLI. We advise practitioners to use larger pre-trained models when subgroup labels are unknown.
Larger language models have higher accuracy on average, but are they better on every single instance (datapoint)? Some work suggests larger models have higher out-of-distribution robustness, while other work suggests they have lower accuracy on rare subgroups. To understand these differences, we investigate these models at the level of individual instances. However, one major challenge is that individual predictions are highly sensitive to noise in the randomness in training. We develop statistically rigorous methods to address this, and after accounting for pretraining and finetuning noise, we find that our BERT-Large is worse than BERT-Mini on at least 1-4% of instances across MNLI, SST-2, and QQP, compared to the overall accuracy improvement of 2-10%. We also find that finetuning noise increases with model size and that instance-level accuracy has momentum: improvement from BERT-Mini to BERT-Medium correlates with improvement from BERT-Medium to BERT-Large. Our findings suggest that instance-level predictions provide a rich source of information; we therefore, recommend that researchers supplement model weights with model predictions.