Improving Text-to-Image Consistency via Automatic Prompt Optimization

Impressive advances in text-to-image (T2I) generative models have yielded a plethora of high performing models which are able to generate aesthetically appealing, photorealistic images. Despite the progress, these models still struggle to produce images that are consistent with the input prompt, oftentimes failing to capture object quantities, relations and attributes properly. Existing solutions to improve prompt-image consistency suffer from the following challenges: (1) they oftentimes require model fine-tuning, (2) they only focus on nearby prompt samples, and (3) they are affected by unfavorable trade-offs among image quality, representation diversity, and prompt-image consistency. In this paper, we address these challenges and introduce a T2I optimization-by-prompting framework, OPT2I, which leverages a large language model (LLM) to improve prompt-image consistency in T2I models. Our framework starts from a user prompt and iteratively generates revised prompts with the goal of maximizing a consistency score. Our extensive validation on two datasets, MSCOCO and PartiPrompts, shows that OPT2I can boost the initial consistency score by up to 24.9% in terms of DSG score while preserving the FID and increasing the recall between generated and real data. Our work paves the way toward building more reliable and robust T2I systems by harnessing the power of LLMs.

Quantifying and mitigating the impact of label errors on model disparity metrics

Errors in labels obtained via human annotation adversely affect a model's performance. Existing approaches propose ways to mitigate the effect of label error on a model's downstream accuracy, yet little is known about its impact on a model's disparity metrics. Here we study the effect of label error on a model's disparity metrics. We empirically characterize how varying levels of label error, in both training and test data, affect these disparity metrics. We find that group calibration and other metrics are sensitive to train-time and test-time label error -- particularly for minority groups. This disparate effect persists even for models trained with noise-aware algorithms. To mitigate the impact of training-time label error, we present an approach to estimate the influence of a training input's label on a model's group disparity metric. We empirically assess the proposed approach on a variety of datasets and find significant improvement, compared to alternative approaches, in identifying training inputs that improve a model's disparity metric. We complement the approach with an automatic relabel-and-finetune scheme that produces updated models with, provably, improved group calibration error.

VPA: Fully Test-Time Visual Prompt Adaptation

Textual prompt tuning has demonstrated significant performance improvements in adapting natural language processing models to a variety of downstream tasks by treating hand-engineered prompts as trainable parameters. Inspired by the success of textual prompting, several studies have investigated the efficacy of visual prompt tuning. In this work, we present Visual Prompt Adaptation (VPA), the first framework that generalizes visual prompting with test-time adaptation. VPA introduces a small number of learnable tokens, enabling fully test-time and storage-efficient adaptation without necessitating source-domain information. We examine our VPA design under diverse adaptation settings, encompassing single-image, batched-image, and pseudo-label adaptation. We evaluate VPA on multiple tasks, including out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, corruption robustness, and domain adaptation. Experimental results reveal that VPA effectively enhances OOD generalization by 3.3% across various models, surpassing previous test-time approaches. Furthermore, we show that VPA improves corruption robustness by 6.5% compared to strong baselines. Finally, we demonstrate that VPA also boosts domain adaptation performance by relatively 5.2%. Our VPA also exhibits marked effectiveness in improving the robustness of zero-shot recognition for vision-language models.

FACET: Fairness in Computer Vision Evaluation Benchmark

Computer vision models have known performance disparities across attributes such as gender and skin tone. This means during tasks such as classification and detection, model performance differs for certain classes based on the demographics of the people in the image. These disparities have been shown to exist, but until now there has not been a unified approach to measure these differences for common use-cases of computer vision models. We present a new benchmark named FACET (FAirness in Computer Vision EvaluaTion), a large, publicly available evaluation set of 32k images for some of the most common vision tasks - image classification, object detection and segmentation. For every image in FACET, we hired expert reviewers to manually annotate person-related attributes such as perceived skin tone and hair type, manually draw bounding boxes and label fine-grained person-related classes such as disk jockey or guitarist. In addition, we use FACET to benchmark state-of-the-art vision models and present a deeper understanding of potential performance disparities and challenges across sensitive demographic attributes. With the exhaustive annotations collected, we probe models using single demographics attributes as well as multiple attributes using an intersectional approach (e.g. hair color and perceived skin tone). Our results show that classification, detection, segmentation, and visual grounding models exhibit performance disparities across demographic attributes and intersections of attributes. These harms suggest that not all people represented in datasets receive fair and equitable treatment in these vision tasks. We hope current and future results using our benchmark will contribute to fairer, more robust vision models. FACET is available publicly at https://facet.metademolab.com/

DIG In: Evaluating Disparities in Image Generations with Indicators for Geographic Diversity

The unprecedented photorealistic results achieved by recent text-to-image generative systems and their increasing use as plug-and-play content creation solutions make it crucial to understand their potential biases. In this work, we introduce three indicators to evaluate the realism, diversity and prompt-generation consistency of text-to-image generative systems when prompted to generate objects from across the world. Our indicators complement qualitative analysis of the broader impact of such systems by enabling automatic and efficient benchmarking of geographic disparities, an important step towards building responsible visual content creation systems. We use our proposed indicators to analyze potential geographic biases in state-of-the-art visual content creation systems and find that: (1) models have less realism and diversity of generations when prompting for Africa and West Asia than Europe, (2) prompting with geographic information comes at a cost to prompt-consistency and diversity of generated images, and (3) models exhibit more region-level disparities for some objects than others. Perhaps most interestingly, our indicators suggest that progress in image generation quality has come at the cost of real-world geographic representation. Our comprehensive evaluation constitutes a crucial step towards ensuring a positive experience of visual content creation for everyone.

Pinpointing Why Object Recognition Performance Degrades Across Income Levels and Geographies

Despite impressive advances in object-recognition, deep learning systems' performance degrades significantly across geographies and lower income levels raising pressing concerns of inequity. Addressing such performance gaps remains a challenge, as little is understood about why performance degrades across incomes or geographies. We take a step in this direction by annotating images from Dollar Street, a popular benchmark of geographically and economically diverse images, labeling each image with factors such as color, shape, and background. These annotations unlock a new granular view into how objects differ across incomes and regions. We then use these object differences to pinpoint model vulnerabilities across incomes and regions. We study a range of modern vision models, finding that performance disparities are most associated with differences in texture, occlusion, and images with darker lighting. We illustrate how insights from our factor labels can surface mitigations to improve models' performance disparities. As an example, we show that mitigating a model's vulnerability to texture can improve performance on the lower income level. We release all the factor annotations along with an interactive dashboard to facilitate research into more equitable vision systems.

Towards Reliable Assessments of Demographic Disparities in Multi-Label Image Classifiers

Disaggregated performance metrics across demographic groups are a hallmark of fairness assessments in computer vision. These metrics successfully incentivized performance improvements on person-centric tasks such as face analysis and are used to understand risks of modern models. However, there is a lack of discussion on the vulnerabilities of these measurements for more complex computer vision tasks. In this paper, we consider multi-label image classification and, specifically, object categorization tasks. First, we highlight design choices and trade-offs for measurement that involve more nuance than discussed in prior computer vision literature. These challenges are related to the necessary scale of data, definition of groups for images, choice of metric, and dataset imbalances. Next, through two case studies using modern vision models, we demonstrate that naive implementations of these assessments are brittle. We identify several design choices that look merely like implementation details but significantly impact the conclusions of assessments, both in terms of magnitude and direction (on which group the classifiers work best) of disparities. Based on ablation studies, we propose some recommendations to increase the reliability of these assessments. Finally, through a qualitative analysis we find that concepts with large disparities tend to have varying definitions and representations between groups, with inconsistencies across datasets and annotators. While this result suggests avenues for mitigation through more consistent data collection, it also highlights that ambiguous label definitions remain a challenge when performing model assessments. Vision models are expanding and becoming more ubiquitous; it is even more important that our disparity assessments accurately reflect the true performance of models.

Vision-Language Models Performing Zero-Shot Tasks Exhibit Gender-based Disparities

We explore the extent to which zero-shot vision-language models exhibit gender bias for different vision tasks. Vision models traditionally required task-specific labels for representing concepts, as well as finetuning; zero-shot models like CLIP instead perform tasks with an open-vocabulary, meaning they do not need a fixed set of labels, by using text embeddings to represent concepts. With these capabilities in mind, we ask: Do vision-language models exhibit gender bias when performing zero-shot image classification, object detection and semantic segmentation? We evaluate different vision-language models with multiple datasets across a set of concepts and find (i) all models evaluated show distinct performance differences based on the perceived gender of the person co-occurring with a given concept in the image and that aggregating analyses over all concepts can mask these concerns; (ii) model calibration (i.e. the relationship between accuracy and confidence) also differs distinctly by perceived gender, even when evaluating on similar representations of concepts; and (iii) these observed disparities align with existing gender biases in word embeddings from language models. These findings suggest that, while language greatly expands the capability of vision tasks, it can also contribute to social biases in zero-shot vision settings. Furthermore, biases can further propagate when foundational models like CLIP are used by other models to enable zero-shot capabilities.

Understanding out-of-distribution accuracies through quantifying difficulty of test samples

Existing works show that although modern neural networks achieve remarkable generalization performance on the in-distribution (ID) dataset, the accuracy drops significantly on the out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets \cite{recht2018cifar, recht2019imagenet}. To understand why a variety of models consistently make more mistakes in the OOD datasets, we propose a new metric to quantify the difficulty of the test images (either ID or OOD) that depends on the interaction of the training dataset and the model. In particular, we introduce \textit{confusion score} as a label-free measure of image difficulty which quantifies the amount of disagreement on a given test image based on the class conditional probabilities estimated by an ensemble of trained models. Using the confusion score, we investigate CIFAR-10 and its OOD derivatives. Next, by partitioning test and OOD datasets via their confusion scores, we predict the relationship between ID and OOD accuracies for various architectures. This allows us to obtain an estimator of the OOD accuracy of a given model only using ID test labels. Our observations indicate that the biggest contribution to the accuracy drop comes from images with high confusion scores. Upon further inspection, we report on the nature of the misclassified images grouped by their confusion scores: \textit{(i)} images with high confusion scores contain \textit{weak spurious correlations} that appear in multiple classes in the training data and lack clear \textit{class-specific features}, and \textit{(ii)} images with low confusion scores exhibit spurious correlations that belong to another class, namely \textit{class-specific spurious correlations}.