analiza aiqbench
This paper tests whether online resale prices can serve as cheap supervision for judging visual appeal, and finds the signal is weak. Only about a quarter of image pairs have a non-tied price direction, and just over a third of those match human rankings, so prices are useful only under narrow conditions. For AI readers, the practical lesson is that multimodal models and reward models need auditing against confounds like provenance and demand before market data is treated as ground truth.
Do Transaction Prices Reflect Visual Preference? A Diagnostic Study with Multimodal Language Models
arXiv:2610.41358v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing visual preference evaluation relies on costly human annotations or preference reward models, whereas online marketplace transaction prices are readily available and reflect real purchasing behavior, offering potential low-cost supervision. However, transaction prices conflate visual preferences with non-visual factors such as provenance, demand, and competition, making aggregate accuracy insufficient to distinguish model errors, unreliable price signals, and protocol confounds. To address this identifiability challenge, we introduce MarketImage, a diagnostic framework that identifies when transaction prices reflect visual preferences, where they fail, and whether multimodal language models can recover human-supported visual preference signals. MarketImage comprises three components: (i) MarketImageArt, 266 six-image comparison sets with transaction prices and price-blind human rankings; (ii) MarketImageLens, a tie-preserving protocol that partitions 3,990 within-set image pairs into price-human agreement, conflict, and price-tie regions while separately auditing presentation-order effects; and (iii) MarketValuator, six elicitation methods spanning direct comparison, independent scoring, budget constraints, and multi-agent aggregation to evaluate signal recovery by static visual scorers and three multimodal language models. Experiments show that only 24.2% of image pairs have a non-tied price direction, of which 34.7% agree with the human majority. Within this region, HPSv2 leads at 66.4% Recoverable Accuracy; Qwen's budgeted and aggregated variants trail baselines, while GPT interface gains remain statistically unresolved. Thus, transaction prices encode recoverable visual preferences only under limited conditions and should be treated as uncertain proxies rather than ground truth.
Title:Do Transaction Prices Reflect Visual Preference? A Diagnostic Study with Multimodal Language Models
Abstract:Existing visual preference evaluation relies on costly human annotations or preference reward models, whereas online marketplace transaction prices are readily available and reflect real purchasing behavior, offering potential low-cost supervision. However, transaction prices conflate visual preferences with non-visual factors such as provenance, demand, and competition, making aggregate accuracy insufficient to distinguish model errors, unreliable price signals, and protocol confounds. To address this identifiability challenge, we introduce MarketImage, a diagnostic framework that identifies when transaction prices reflect visual preferences, where they fail, and whether multimodal language models can recover human-supported visual preference signals. MarketImage comprises three components: (i) MarketImageArt, 266 six-image comparison sets with transaction prices and price-blind human rankings; (ii) MarketImageLens, a tie-preserving protocol that partitions 3,990 within-set image pairs into price-human agreement, conflict, and price-tie regions while separately auditing presentation-order effects; and (iii) MarketValuator, six elicitation methods spanning direct comparison, independent scoring, budget constraints, and multi-agent aggregation to evaluate signal recovery by static visual scorers and three multimodal language models. Experiments show that only 24.2% of image pairs have a non-tied price direction, of which 34.7% agree with the human majority. Within this region, HPSv2 leads at 66.4% Recoverable Accuracy; Qwen's budgeted and aggregated variants trail baselines, while GPT interface gains remain statistically unresolved. Thus, transaction prices encode recoverable visual preferences only under limited conditions and should be treated as uncertain proxies rather than ground truth.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.41358 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.41358v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41358 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 334 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Reconstructing Fraudulent Strategies in Online Payments via Interpretable Inverse Reinforcement Learning
arXiv · 4 nov. 2026
Demand-Side Measurement for Generative Engine Optimization: Constructing and Validating a Million-Persona, Intent-Annotated Buyer Corpus
arXiv · 1 sept. 2026

Transactional Vs Analytical Database: Choosing OLTP, OLAP, or Hybrid
Databricks · 24 aug. 2026
Machine Learning-Based Detection of Mobile Money Scan Messages in Ghana: A Comparative Evaluation of Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, and Randon Forest Classifiers
arXiv · 30 oct. 2026