Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CognArtive: Large Language Models for Automating Art Analysis and Decoding Aesthetic Elements

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims GPT-4V, with GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0, automates formal art analysis on 15,000 artworks, decoding visual elements, composition, and technique, with style-description alignment at 0.70 median cosine similarity.

desk verdict A large-scale but under-validated MLLM art-analysis pipeline; the cosine-similarity evaluation is text-to-text and never shows that the image input matters. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04353 v1 pith:KCQQQ34G submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CV

Afshin Khadangi , Amir Sartipi , Igor Tchappi , Gilbert Fridgen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CV
keywords artanalysismultimodalLLMsGPT-4Vformaltextembeddingscosinesimilaritystylesdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a pipeline of multimodal large language models — GPT-4V answering eight formal-analysis questions per artwork, with GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0 synthesizing the answers — can automate the analysis of visual and expressive elements in art at a scale no human critic could match. Applied to more than 15,000 digitized paintings from 23 artists and 34 styles, the pipeline produces structured descriptions of form, scale, color, light, movement, material, and technique that align with established style descriptions, with median cosine similarities reaching 0.70 for technique. If the alignment reflects genuine visual reading, it would give art historians and curators a quantitative, reproducible picture of how aesthetic elements change over five centuries. The paper also reports temporal patterns, such as the late-nineteenth-century rise of smooth brushstrokes and the twentieth-century emergence of acrylic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a question-answer-synthesis-evaluation loop. Each artwork image is sent to GPT-4V together with eight fixed questions defined by the analysis framework; the model's answers are cleaned and passed to GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0, which synthesize them into structured counts and categories. Those categories are then embedded with four text-embedding models — SBERT all-mpnet-base-v2, BGE-M3, OpenAI text-embedding-3-small, and NV-Embed-v2 — and the cosine similarity between each analysis embedding and the embedding of the corresponding style description is the numeric quantity that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Randomly permute the pairing of analysis embeddings with style-description embeddings and recompute the median cosine similarity for each focus area; if shuffled pairs score nearly as high as the true pairs, the alignment is not style-specific. A second decisive check would have expert art historians answer the same eight questions for a sample of the same artworks and compare human-model agreement against human-human agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an off-the-shelf vision-language model can carry out a formal art critique when given a structured prompt, and that the resulting text, when embedded, sits measurably close to the text that art historians use to describe the corresponding styles. GPT-4V answers eight questions drawn from a standard art-analysis framework covering proportion, form, spatial dynamics, method, contrast, material, emotion, and light; GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0 then convert the raw answers into categorical metrics for six focus areas. Evaluation with four embedding models shows the strongest alignment for techniques (median 0.70 with NV-Embed-v2) and weakest for material (median 0.40), and the authors take this as evidence that language models capture some technical and dynamic aspects of art better than material ones. The paper frames this as 'decoding' aesthetic elements and as a step toward a more objective and efficient complement to traditional art analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that the cosine similarity between the model's written analysis and a style description is a valid measure of how accurately the model read the artwork, and that the style labels attached to the digital reproductions are correct; if either assumption fails, the 'decoding' claim loses its evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given the same eight-question prompt, the pipeline can process tens of thousands of images in hours, making whole-collection analysis practical.
  • The temporal trends the pipeline extracts — such as the decline of monochromatic palettes, the rise of geometric forms, and the twentieth-century arrival of acrylic — become testable hypotheses about art history.
  • If the alignment scores are meaningful, the framework offers a quantitative way to compare how different styles handle light, contrast, and technique.
  • The consistent ranking of NV-Embed-v2 over the other embedding models implies that the measured alignment depends on the embedding space, so future work should report multiple embedding models rather than a single one.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper never runs a permutation control that shuffles style labels against analysis embeddings, so its core similarity numbers could partly reflect a shared art vocabulary rather than style-specific reading; such a control would separate the two effects.
  • If the pipeline were applied to unlabeled artworks, the distance from an analysis embedding to known artist or style regions could be used as an authorship or attribution score, an application the paper lists as future work.
  • The framework's predefined categories likely bound what the models can report; questions that allow open-ended description might reveal aesthetic dimensions the current eight questions miss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline called CognArtive that uses GPT-4V, GPT-4, and Gemini 2.0 to automate a formal art-analysis framework on over 15,000 WikiArt artworks from 23 artists spanning roughly the 15th to 21st centuries. The pipeline asks eight predefined technical and conceptual questions (Section 3.2, Figure 3), synthesizes the responses with GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0, and derives quantitative distributions over attributes such as form, scale, color, light, movement, material, technique, and figure type (Section 4). The evaluation (Section 5) computes cosine similarity between text embeddings of the generated analyses and text embeddings of style descriptions across four embedding models, reporting median similarities up to 0.70 for techniques (Table 1). The paper concludes that LLMs show significant potential in automating and 'decoding' artistic elements, and it provides interactive visualizations online.

Significance. If the pipeline were convincingly validated, the work would be a useful large-scale demonstration of multimodal LLMs for art-historical description and trend discovery, with a substantial corpus and an interactive public dashboard. The authors should be credited for assembling a large dataset, applying a formal critique framework, and reporting results across multiple embedding models rather than a single proprietary one. However, the current evidence is descriptive: the only quantitative validation is a text-to-text embedding similarity measure, and the historical conclusions are derived from unvalidated model outputs plotted as raw counts. The manuscript therefore does not yet establish that the models 'decode' visual content, and the temporal patterns could reflect dataset composition or language-model priors rather than actual changes in art. The central claim is defensible in principle, but it requires substantially stronger validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1] The evaluation measures cosine similarity between embeddings of the generated analysis text and embeddings of style-description text. This is a text-to-text comparison and does not test whether the analysis is grounded in the visual content of each artwork. A model with strong prior knowledge about an artist, period, or style could produce plausible analyses even without seeing the image, and those analyses would still embed close to the corresponding style description. The paper reports no image-free control (e.g., the same eight questions asked of a text-only GPT-4 with no image input), no human-expert baseline, and no per-attribute accuracy against labeled ground truth. As a result, the central claim that GPT-4V 'decodes artistic expressions, visual elements, composition, and techniques' from images is not supported by the reported evidence.
  2. [Section 4 and Figures S1-S15] The historical trends are derived entirely from the same unvalidated GPT-4V extractions and are plotted as raw counts over time. Because the numbers of artworks per artist, style, and period are highly imbalanced (see Figure 1, where style counts range from a handful to over a thousand on a log scale), the raw-count plots confound the actual prevalence of an attribute with the number of artworks available in that period. For instance, the claimed recent surge in geometric forms, the decline of monochromatic tones, and the emergence of acrylic are not normalized by the total number of artworks per period, so they could reflect dataset composition or model priors rather than real historical changes. The authors should plot proportions or per-period rates and provide confidence intervals or statistical tests before drawing temporal conclusions.
  3. [Section 6, Limitations] The Limitations paragraph acknowledges subjectivity and the dependence on predefined criteria, but it does not acknowledge the absence of any validation that the extracted attributes are correct for individual artworks. The only quantitative check is text-embedding similarity, which is not a ground-truth measure. The manuscript should include a validation study: for a random sample of artworks, have human annotators (ideally art historians or trained annotators) answer the same eight questions, and measure agreement with the GPT-4V outputs; without such a comparison, the paper overstates what the pipeline establishes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1] The abbreviation 'SBON' appears in the table and text before it is defined; the definition should be given in the main text rather than only in the table footnote.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure S16] Several figure captions contain typographical errors, e.g., 'simmilarity' in Figure S16, and the text uses 'Gemeni' instead of 'Gemini' in Section 2; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The manuscript does not show any example of the raw GPT-4V or synthesized output, so readers cannot qualitatively assess whether the responses are sensible, complete, or visibly grounded; adding a few anonymized examples would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [References] The reference 'Multi-Granularity, 2024' is missing the author list and appears incomplete; please verify and complete all references.
  5. [Section 1 and Section 6] The paper repeatedly calls the approach 'objective', but the analysis depends on subjective prompts and unvalidated model outputs; this claim should be softened or qualified until validation is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline is image-driven, uses no fitted parameters, and the evaluation compares against external style descriptions rather than reconstructing the input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: digitized WikiArt images are sent to GPT-4V with eight predefined questions from Hodge's external art-analysis guide; GPT-4 and Gemini 2.0 synthesize the answers; and Section 5 evaluates the output by computing cosine similarity between embeddings of the generated analysis text and embeddings of 'established descriptions of the ground-truth art styles' using four independent embedding models. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation data, and the analysis output is not defined in terms of the style-description embeddings. The eight questions come from an external published source (Hodge, 2024), not from the authors' own prior work, and there are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The evaluation does have a validity limitation: cosine similarity is computed between two text encodings, the provenance of the style descriptions is not specified, and there is no image-free control or per-attribute human baseline, so high similarity could partly reflect shared art-historical vocabulary or LLM priors rather than visual grounding. The paper's Limitations paragraph acknowledges subjectivity and reliance on predefined criteria but does not address this specific control. That is a missing-evidence or experimental-design concern, not a circular derivation: the compared quantities are not equal by construction, and the claim is not reduced to its inputs. Therefore the paper receives a circularity score of 0, with the validity caveat noted separately.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new forces, particles, or fitted constants. Its burden is carried by domain assumptions: that WikiArt labels and digital reproductions are reliable, that Hodge's eight questions cover the relevant aesthetic dimensions, that unverified LLM outputs can be treated as expert-like text, and that embedding cosine similarity to style descriptions validates visual analysis. These assumptions are not tested against human experts or attribute-level ground truth, so the ledger is non-empty even though the free-parameter list is empty.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption WikiArt style labels are accurate ground truth for art styles
    Section 3.1 uses WikiArt styles as ground truth for evaluation in Section 5; label noise or style misassignment would bias all cosine-similarity scores.
  • domain assumption Hodge's eight questions constitute a valid and sufficient formal art analysis framework
    Section 3.2 bases the entire prompt on [Hodge, 2024]; if the framework omits relevant aesthetic dimensions, the analysis is incomplete by construction.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between text embeddings of LLM analysis and style descriptions measures quality of art analysis
    Section 5 uses this as the only quantitative evaluation; high similarity can reflect generic language overlap or embedding model bias, not visual accuracy.
  • domain assumption Digital reproductions from WikiArt faithfully represent the original artworks' form, color, light, and material
    The whole pipeline analyzes digitized images; color, light, and material judgments are affected by reproduction quality, lighting, and compression.
  • domain assumption GPT-4V, GPT-4, and Gemini 2.0 outputs are treated as reliable expert-like text without hallucination checks
    No human verification or confidence filtering is applied to individual model responses before aggregation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CognArtive: Large Language Models for Automating Art Analysis and Decoding Aesthetic Elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KCQQQ34G

@misc{pith2026250204353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CognArtive: Large Language Models for Automating Art Analysis and Decoding Aesthetic Elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KCQQQ34G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04353}
}
read the original abstract

Art, as a universal language, can be interpreted in diverse ways, with artworks embodying profound meanings and nuances. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the availability of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) raise the question of how these transformative models can be used to assess and interpret the artistic elements of artworks. While research has been conducted in this domain, to the best of our knowledge, a deep and detailed understanding of the technical and expressive features of artworks using LLMs has not been explored. In this study, we investigate the automation of a formal art analysis framework to analyze a high-throughput number of artworks rapidly and examine how their patterns evolve over time. We explore how LLMs can decode artistic expressions, visual elements, composition, and techniques, revealing emerging patterns that develop across periods. Finally, we discuss the strengths and limitations of LLMs in this context, emphasizing their ability to process vast quantities of art-related data and generate insightful interpretations. Due to the exhaustive and granular nature of the results, we have developed interactive data visualizations, available online https://cognartive.github.io/, to enhance understanding and accessibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the number of artworks across different styles for individual artists. We retrieved more than 15,000 artworks across 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of our analysis framework for decoding aesthetics, which integrates both technical and expressive features of digitized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Demonstration of the technical and expressive range of questions we employed in our methodology to analyze the artworks, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Speaking images. A novel framework for the automated self-description of artworks

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-stage open-source AI pipeline turns a digitized artwork into a short video where a depicted person animates and narrates the scene.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Unveiling the evolution of generative ai (gai): a comprehensive and investiga- tive analysis toward llm models (2021–2024) and beyond

    [Akhtar, 2024] Zarif Bin Akhtar. Unveiling the evolution of generative ai (gai): a comprehensive and investiga- tive analysis toward llm models (2021–2024) and beyond. Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology, 11(1):22,

    work page 2024

  2. [4]

    Latent dirichlet allocation

    [Blei et al., 2003] David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993–1022,

    work page 2003

  3. [7]

    A deep learning approach to clustering visual arts

    [Castellano and Vessio, 2022] Giovanna Castellano and Gen- naro Vessio. A deep learning approach to clustering visual arts. International Journal of Computer Vision , 130(11):2590–2605,

    work page 2022

  4. [8]

    Lever- aging knowledge graphs and deep learning for automatic art analysis

    [Castellano et al., 2022] Giovanna Castellano, Vincenzo Digeno, Giovanni Sansaro, and Gennaro Vessio. Lever- aging knowledge graphs and deep learning for automatic art analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 248:108859,

    work page 2022

  5. [9]

    Under- standing and creating art with ai: Review and outlook.ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(2):1–22,

    [Cetinic and She, 2022] Eva Cetinic and James She. Under- standing and creating art with ai: Review and outlook.ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(2):1–22,

    work page 2022

  6. [10]

    A deep learning perspective on beauty, sentiment, and remembrance of art

    [Cetinic et al., 2019] Eva Cetinic, Tomislav Lipic, and Sonja Grgic. A deep learning perspective on beauty, sentiment, and remembrance of art. IEEE access, 7:73694–73710,

    work page 2019

  7. [12]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    [Deng et al., 2009] Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li- Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee,

    work page 2009

  8. [15]

    A neural algorithm of artistic style

    [Gatys, 2015] Leon A Gatys. A neural algorithm of artistic style. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.06576,

    arXiv 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [17]

    Elements of Art: Ten Ways to Decode the Masterpieces

    [Hodge, 2024] Susie Hodge. Elements of Art: Ten Ways to Decode the Masterpieces. Frances Lincoln,

    2024

  2. [18]

    Artistic style recognition: Combining deep and shallow neural networks for painting classification

    [Imran et al., 2023] Saqib Imran, Rizwan Ali Naqvi, Muham- mad Sajid, Tauqeer Safdar Malik, Saif Ullah, Syed Atif Moqurrab, and Dong Keon Yon. Artistic style recognition: Combining deep and shallow neural networks for painting classification. Mathematics, 11(22):4564,

    2023

  3. [19]

    Neural style transfer: A review

    [Jing et al., 2019] Yongcheng Jing, Yezhou Yang, Zunlei Feng, Jingwen Ye, Yizhou Yu, and Mingli Song. Neural style transfer: A review. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 26(11):3365–3385,

    2019

  4. [20]

    Photo aesthetics ranking network with attributes and content adaptation

    [Kong et al., 2016] Shu Kong, Xiaohui Shen, Zhe Lin, Radomir Mech, and Charless Fowlkes. Photo aesthetics ranking network with attributes and content adaptation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Pro- ceedi...

    2016

  5. [22]

    Nv-embed: Improved techniques for train- ing llms as generalist embedding models

    [Lee et al., 2024] Chankyu Lee, Rajarshi Roy, Mengyao Xu, Jonathan Raiman, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro, and Wei Ping. Nv-embed: Improved techniques for train- ing llms as generalist embedding models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17428,

    2024 arXiv

  6. [23]

    Visual instruction tuning

    [Liu et al., 2024] Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36,

    2024

  7. [24]

    The rijksmuseum challenge: Museum- centered visual recognition

    [Mensink and van Gemert, 2014] Thomas Mensink and Jan van Gemert. The rijksmuseum challenge: Museum- centered visual recognition. In ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR),

    2014

  8. [26]

    Ava: A large-scale database for aesthetic visual analysis

    [Murray et al., 2012] Naila Murray, Luca Marchesotti, and Florent Perronnin. Ava: A large-scale database for aesthetic visual analysis. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2408–2415. IEEE,

    2012

  9. [28]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural lan- guage supervision

    [Radford et al., 2021] Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural lan- guage supervision. In International conferenc...

    2021

  10. [30]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks

    [Reimers and Gurevych, 2019] Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 11

    2019

  11. [31]

    Graphclip: Image-graph contrastive learning for multimodal artwork classification

    [Scaringi et al., 2025] Raffaele Scaringi, Giuseppe Fiameni, Gennaro Vessio, and Giovanna Castellano. Graphclip: Image-graph contrastive learning for multimodal artwork classification. Knowledge-Based Systems , 310:112857,

    2025

  12. [33]

    Omniart: a large-scale artistic benchmark

    [Strezoski and Worring, 2018] Gjorgji Strezoski and Marcel Worring. Omniart: a large-scale artistic benchmark. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 14(4):1–21,

    2018

  13. [34]

    What does a visual formal analysis of the world’s 500 most famous paintings tell us about multimodal llms? In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024,

    [Tao and Xie, 2024] Muzi Tao and Saining Xie. What does a visual formal analysis of the world’s 500 most famous paintings tell us about multimodal llms? In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024,

    2024

  14. [35]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multi- modal models

    [Team et al., 2023] Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Sori- cut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multi- modal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

    2023 arXiv

  15. [37]

    As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. [Zhang et al., 2024] Zhanjie Zhang, Quanwei Zhang, Huaizhong Lin, Wei Xing, Juncheng Mo, Shuaicheng Huang, Jinheng Xie, Guangyuan Li, Junsheng Luan, Lei Zhao, Dalong Zhang, and Lixia Chen. Towards highly realistic artistic style tra...

    2024

  16. [38]

    Due to the interactive nature of the data visualizations, these figures are also available online at https://cognartive.github.io/

    Supplementary Figures This section provides supplementary figures that support the findings and discussions presented in the main body of our paper. Due to the interactive nature of the data visualizations, these figures are also available online at https://cognartive.github.i...

    1900

  17. [2003]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    [Brown et al., 2020] Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ry- der, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 3...

    2020

  18. [2009]

    The shape of art history in the eyes of the machine

    [Elgammal et al., 2018] Ahmed Elgammal, Bingchen Liu, Diana Kim, Mohamed Elhoseiny, and Marian Mazzone. The shape of art history in the eyes of the machine. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32,

    2018

  19. [2012]

    Towards cross-lingual explanation of artwork in large-scale vision language models

    [Ozaki et al., 2024] Shintaro Ozaki, Kazuki Hayashi, Yusuke Sakai, Hidetaka Kamigaito, Katsuhiko Hayashi, and Taro Watanabe. Towards cross-lingual explanation of artwork in large-scale vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01584,

    2024 arXiv

  20. [2014]

    M3-embedding: Multi-linguality, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation

    [Multi-Granularity, 2024] Multi-Linguality Multi- Functionality Multi-Granularity. M3-embedding: Multi-linguality, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation

    2024

  21. [2015]

    Towards artwork explanation in large-scale vision language models

    [Hayashi et al., 2024] Kazuki Hayashi, Yusuke Sakai, Hide- taka Kamigaito, Katsuhiko Hayashi, and Taro Watanabe. Towards artwork explanation in large-scale vision language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volum...

    2024

  22. [2016]

    Large language models (llms): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges

    [Kumar, 2024] Pranjal Kumar. Large language models (llms): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges. Artifi- cial Intelligence Review, 57(10):260,

    2024

  23. [2018]

    How to read paintings: semantic art understanding with multi-modal retrieval

    [Garcia and V ogiatzis, 2018] Noa Garcia and George V o- giatzis. How to read paintings: semantic art understanding with multi-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, pages 0–0,

    2018

  24. [2019]

    Culturai: Exploring mixed reality art exhibitions with large language models for personalized immersive experiences

    [Constantinides et al., 2024] Nicolas Constantinides, Argyris Constantinides, Dimitrios Koukopoulos, Christos Fidas, and Marios Belk. Culturai: Exploring mixed reality art exhibitions with large language models for personalized immersive experiences. In Adjunct Proceedings of ...

    2024

  25. [2020]

    Optimizing style recognition algorithm for digital art images using large language models (llms)

    [Cao, 2024] Ye Cao. Optimizing style recognition algorithm for digital art images using large language models (llms). In 2024 5th International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC), pages 1536–

    2024

  26. [2021]

    Dall-e: Creating images from text

    [Reddy et al., 2021] Mr D Murahari Reddy, Mr Sk Masthan Basha, Mr M Chinnaiahgari Hari, and Mr N Penchalaiah. Dall-e: Creating images from text. UGC Care Group I Journal, 8(14):71–75,

    2021

  27. [2022]

    Gallerygpt: Analyzing paintings with large multi- modal models

    [Bin et al., 2024] Yi Bin, Wenhao Shi, Yujuan Ding, Zhiqiang Hu, Zheng Wang, Yang Yang, See-Kiong Ng, and Heng Tao Shen. Gallerygpt: Analyzing paintings with large multi- modal models. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, pages 7734–7743,

    2024

  28. [2023]

    Augmented SBERT: Data augmentation method for improving bi- encoders for pairwise sentence scoring tasks

    [Thakur et al., 2021] Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Jo- hannes Daxenberger, and Iryna Gurevych. Augmented SBERT: Data augmentation method for improving bi- encoders for pairwise sentence scoring tasks. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the...

    2021

  29. [2024]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few- shot learning

    [Alayrac et al., 2022] Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few- shot learning. Advances in neural information proc...

    2022

  30. [2025]

    Artpedia: A new visual-semantic dataset with visual and contextual sentences in the artistic domain

    [Stefanini et al., 2019] Matteo Stefanini, Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, Massimiliano Corsini, and Rita Cucchiara. Artpedia: A new visual-semantic dataset with visual and contextual sentences in the artistic domain. In Image Anal- ysis and Processing–ICIAP 2019: 20th Inter...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.