Andre Ye

Andre Ye, Sebastin Santy, Jena D. Hwang et al. · uw

Computer vision often treats human perception as homogeneous: an implicit assumption that visual stimuli are perceived similarly by everyone. This assumption is reflected in the way researchers collect datasets and train vision models. By contrast, literature in cross-cultural psychology and linguistics has provided evidence that people from different cultural backgrounds observe vastly different concepts even when viewing the same visual stimuli. In this paper, we study how these differences manifest themselves in vision-language datasets and models, using language as a proxy for culture. By comparing textual descriptions generated across 7 languages for the same images, we find significant differences in the semantic content and linguistic expression. When datasets are multilingual as opposed to monolingual, descriptions have higher semantic coverage on average, where coverage is measured using scene graphs, model embeddings, and linguistic taxonomies. For example, multilingual descriptions have on average 29.9% more objects, 24.5% more relations, and 46.0% more attributes than a set of monolingual captions. When prompted to describe images in different languages, popular models (e.g. LLaVA) inherit this bias and describe different parts of the image. Moreover, finetuning models on captions from one language performs best on corresponding test data from that language, while finetuning on multilingual data performs consistently well across all test data compositions. Our work points towards the need to account for and embrace the diversity of human perception in the computer vision community.

Andre Ye, Quan Ze Chen, Amy Zhang · uw

Medical image segmentation modeling is a high-stakes task where understanding of uncertainty is crucial for addressing visual ambiguity. Prior work has developed segmentation models utilizing probabilistic or generative mechanisms to infer uncertainty from labels where annotators draw a singular boundary. However, as these annotations cannot represent an individual annotator's uncertainty, models trained on them produce uncertainty maps that are difficult to interpret. We propose a novel segmentation representation, Confidence Contours, which uses high- and low-confidence ``contours'' to capture uncertainty directly, and develop a novel annotation system for collecting contours. We conduct an evaluation on the Lung Image Dataset Consortium (LIDC) and a synthetic dataset. From an annotation study with 30 participants, results show that Confidence Contours provide high representative capacity without considerably higher annotator effort. We also find that general-purpose segmentation models can learn Confidence Contours at the same performance level as standard singular annotations. Finally, from interviews with 5 medical experts, we find that Confidence Contour maps are more interpretable than Bayesian maps due to representation of structural uncertainty.

Andre Ye, Jenny Y. Huang, Alicia Guo et al.

When language models answer open-ended problems, they implicitly make hidden decisions that shape their outputs, leaving users with uncontextualized answers rather than a working map of the problem; drawing on multiverse analysis from statistics, we build and evaluate the conceptual multiverse, an interactive system that represents conceptual decisions such as how to frame a question or what to value as a space users can transparently inspect, intervenably change, and check against principled domain reasoning; for this structure to be worth navigating rather than misleading, it must be rigorous and checkable against domain reasoning norms, so we develop a general verification framework that enforces properties of good decision structures like unambiguity and completeness calibrated by expert-level reasoning; across three domains, the conceptual multiverse helped participants develop a working map of the problem, with philosophy students rewriting essays with sharper framings and reversed theses, alignment annotators moving from surface preferences to reasoning about user intent and harm, and poets identifying compositional patterns that clarified their taste.