REVIEW 3 cited by
GenAI Arena: An Open Evaluation Platform for Generative Models
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
read the original abstract
Generative AI has made remarkable strides to revolutionize fields such as image and video generation. These advancements are driven by innovative algorithms, architecture, and data. However, the rapid proliferation of generative models has highlighted a critical gap: the absence of trustworthy evaluation metrics. Current automatic assessments such as FID, CLIP, FVD, etc often fail to capture the nuanced quality and user satisfaction associated with generative outputs. This paper proposes an open platform GenAI-Arena to evaluate different image and video generative models, where users can actively participate in evaluating these models. By leveraging collective user feedback and votes, GenAI-Arena aims to provide a more democratic and accurate measure of model performance. It covers three tasks of text-to-image generation, text-to-video generation, and image editing respectively. Currently, we cover a total of 35 open-source generative models. GenAI-Arena has been operating for seven months, amassing over 9000 votes from the community. We describe our platform, analyze the data, and explain the statistical methods for ranking the models. To further promote the research in building model-based evaluation metrics, we release a cleaned version of our preference data for the three tasks, namely GenAI-Bench. We prompt the existing multi-modal models like Gemini, and GPT-4o to mimic human voting. We compute the accuracy by comparing the model voting with the human voting to understand their judging abilities. Our results show existing multimodal models are still lagging in assessing the generated visual content, even the best model GPT-4o only achieves an average accuracy of 49.19 across the three generative tasks. Open-source MLLMs perform even worse due to the lack of instruction-following and reasoning ability in complex vision scenarios.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
REALEDIT: Reddit Edits As a Large-scale Empirical Dataset for Image Transformations
REALEDIT provides a large-scale, real-world image editing dataset from Reddit and demonstrates that training on it improves performance on authentic user requests.
-
Sample-Adaptive Latent Rewards for Uncertainty-Guided Diffusion Post-Training
SURE learns sample-adaptive variance in a latent reward model and uses that variance to weight dense post-training feedback, improving image and video diffusion alignment in reported experiments.
-
ADIEE: Automatic Dataset Creation and Scorer for Instruction-Guided Image Editing Evaluation
An automatically generated training dataset and a fine-tuned LLaVA-NeXT model produce an image editing evaluation scorer that aligns with human preference and serves as a reward model for improving editing models.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.