Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39348404›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Prompt-guided and multimodal landscape scenicness assessments with vision-language models.

Alex Levering, Diego Marcos, Nathan Jacobs, Devis Tuia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alex LeveringLaboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Diego MarcosInria, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Nathan JacobsMcKelvey School of Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Devis TuiaEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Environmental Computational Science and Earth Observation Laboratory, Sion, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0374-2459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in deep learning and Vision-Language Models (VLM) have enabled efficient transfer to downstream tasks even when limited labelled training data is available, as well as for text to be directly compared to image content. These properties of VLMs enable new opportunities for the annotation and analysis of images. We test the potential of VLMs for landscape scenicness prediction, i.e., the aesthetic quality of a landscape, using zero- and few-shot methods. We experiment with few-shot learning by fine-tuning a single linear layer on a pre-trained VLM representation. We find that a model fitted to just a few hundred samples performs favourably compared to a model trained on hundreds of thousands of examples in a fully supervised way. We also explore the zero-shot prediction potential of contrastive prompting using positive and negative landscape aesthetic concepts. Our results show that this method outperforms a linear probe with few-shot learning when using a small number of samples to tune the prompt configuration. We introduce Landscape Prompt Ensembling (LPE), which is an annotation method for acquiring landscape scenicness ratings through rated text descriptions without needing an image dataset during annotation. We demonstrate that LPE can provide landscape scenicness assessments that are concordant with a dataset of image ratings. The success of zero- and few-shot methods combined with their ability to use text-based annotations highlights the potential for VLMs to provide efficient landscape scenicness assessments with greater flexibility.

Indexed as

Deep LearningEstheticsHumansLanguage

Identifiers

PMID39348404
PMCPMC11441650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.