skip to main content
10.1145/3591106.3592217acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicmrConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Explaining Image Aesthetics Assessment: An Interactive Approach

Published:12 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Assessing visual aesthetics is important for organizing and retrieving photos. That is one reason why several works aim to automate such an assessment using deep neural networks. The underlying models, however, lack explainability. Due to the subjective nature of aesthetics, it is challenging to find objective ground truths and explanations for aesthetics based on them. Hence, such models are prone to socio-cultural biases that come with the data, which raises questions on a wide range of ethical and technical issues. This paper presents an explainable artificial intelligence framework that adapts and combines three types of explanations for the concept of aesthetic assessment: 1) model constraints for built-in interpretability, 2) analysis of perturbation impacts on decisions, and 3) generation of artificial images that represent maxima or minima of values in the latent feature space. The objective is to improve human understanding through the explanations by creating an intuition for the model’s decision making. We identify issues that arise when humans interact with the explanations and derive requirements from human feedback to address the needs of different user groups. We evaluate our novel interactive explainable artificial intelligence technology in a study with end users (N=20). Our participants have different levels of experience in deep learning, allowing us to include experts, intermediate users, and laypersons. Our results show the benefits of the interactivity of our approach. All users found our system helpful in understanding how the aesthetic assessment was executed, reporting varying needs for explanatory details.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. L. Abdenebaoui, B. Meyer, A. Bruns, and S. Boll. 2018. UNNA: A Unified Neural Network for Aesthetic Assessment. In 2018 International Conference on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMI.2018.8516273Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gulsum Alicioglu and Bo Sun. 2021. A survey of visual analytics for Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods. Computers & Graphics (Sept. 2021), S0097849321001886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2021.09.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2008. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology (July 2008). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. 4700–4708. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_cvpr_2017/html/Huang_Densely_Connected_Convolutional_CVPR_2017_paper.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dhiraj Joshi, Ritendra Datta, Elena Fedorovskaya, Quang-Tuan Luong, James Z. Wang, Jia Li, and Jiebo Luo. 2011. Aesthetics and Emotions in Images. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 28, 5 (Sept. 2011), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.941851Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chen Kang, Giuseppe Valenzise, and Frédéric Dufaux. 2020. EVA: An Explainable Visual Aesthetics Dataset. In Joint Workshop on Aesthetic and Technical Quality Assessment of Multimedia and Media Analytics for Societal Trends(ATQAM/MAST’20). Association for Computing Machinery, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3423268.3423590Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2017. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (Jan. 2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 arXiv:1412.6980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Spencer C. Kohn, Ewart J. de Visser, Eva Wiese, Yi-Ching Lee, and Tyler H. Shaw. 2021. Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021). https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Shu Kong, Xiaohui Shen, Zhe Lin, Radomir Mech, and Charless Fowlkes. 2016. Photo Aesthetics Ranking Network with Attributes and Content Adaptation. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Bastian Leibe, Jiri Matas, Nicu Sebe, and Max Welling (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 662–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46448-0_40Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Justin Kruger and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 6 (1999), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clayton Lewis. 1982. Using the “thinking-aloud method in cognitive interface design.Technical Report. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Pantelis Linardatos, Vasilis Papastefanopoulos, and Sotiris Kotsiantis. 2021. Explainable AI: A Review of Machine Learning Interpretability Methods. Entropy 23, 1 (Jan. 2021), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23010018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gautam Malu, Raju S. Bapi, and Bipin Indurkhya. 2017. Learning Photography Aesthetics with Deep CNNs. 28th Modern Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (July 2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03981 arXiv:1707.03981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Alexander Mordvintsev, Nicola Pezzotti, Ludwig Schubert, and Chris Olah. 2018. Differentiable Image Parameterizations. Distill 3, 7 (July 2018), e12. https://doi.org/10.23915/distill.00012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev, and Ludwig Schubert. 2017. Feature Visualization. Distill 2, 11 (Nov. 2017), e7. https://doi.org/10.23915/distill.00007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Richard L. Oliver. 1977. Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation.Journal of Applied Psychology 62, 4 (1977), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.480Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Wojciech Samek, Grégoire Montavon, Andrea Vedaldi, Lars Kai Hansen, and Klaus-Robert Müller (Eds.). 2019. Explainable AI: interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning. Number 11700 in Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kekai Sheng, Weiming Dong, Chongyang Ma, Xing Mei, Feiyue Huang, and Bao-Gang Hu. 2018. Attention-based Multi-Patch Aggregation for Image Aesthetic Assessment. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 879–886. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240508.3240554Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research 15, 56 (2014), 1929–1958. http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hossein Talebi and Peyman Milanfar. 2018. NIMA: Neural Image Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 27, 8 (Aug. 2018), 3998–4011. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2018.2831899Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. 2019. EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 6105–6114. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/tan19a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Heather M. Wojton, Daniel Porter, Stephanie T. Lane, Chad Bieber, and Poornima Madhavan. 2020. Initial validation of the trust of automated systems test (TOAST). The Journal of Social Psychology 160, 6 (Nov. 2020), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1749020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Xiaoran Wu. 2022. Interpretable Aesthetic Analysis Model for Intelligent Photography Guidance Systems. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(IUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511155Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Yan Ke, Xiaoou Tang, and Feng Jing. 2006. The Design of High-Level Features for Photo Quality Assessment. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), Vol. 1. 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2006.303 ISSN: 1063-6919.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Matthew D. Zeiler and Rob Fergus. 2014. Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), David Fleet, Tomas Pajdla, Bernt Schiele, and Tinne Tuytelaars (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 818–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Explaining Image Aesthetics Assessment: An Interactive Approach

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICMR '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval
          June 2023
          694 pages
          ISBN:9798400701788
          DOI:10.1145/3591106

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 June 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate254of830submissions,31%

          Upcoming Conference

          ICMR '24
          International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval
          June 10 - 14, 2024
          Phuket , Thailand
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)194
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format