When Style Similarity Scores Fail: Diagnosing Raw CSD Cosine in Artist-Style Evaluation
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917477261246464 |
|---|---|
| author | Frochte, Jörg |
| author_facet | Frochte, Jörg |
| contents | Raw cosine in the 768-dimensional output space of the Contrastive Style Descriptor (CSD) is now widely read as an absolute, calibrated style-fidelity score for text-to-image and style-imitation evaluation. We introduce the discrimination gap, a corpus-internal, prototype-free and threshold-free diagnostic that tests whether contrastive style cosines admit an absolute same-versus-different interpretation on a candidate artist corpus. On a 1799-artwork, 91-artist public-domain corpus, raw CSD cosine yields negative point-estimate gaps for $23/91$ artists at the pairwise level ($2/91$ robust under bootstrap) and for $15/91$ in the aggregated-pool scoring regime style-fidelity evaluations typically use. CSLS readout on the frozen backbone reduces the aggregated negative-gap count to $4/91$; combined with positional-embedding interpolation to $336$ pixels it raises unsupervised pair-verification AUC from $0.883$ to $0.905$ across $25$ artist-disjoint splits. We refer to this diagnostic-driven readout protocol on the frozen backbone (CSLS as default, pos-interp $336$ as the stronger optional setting) as CSD+, not a new encoder.A cross-backbone check on CLIP-ViT-L/14, SigLIP-large and DINOv2-Large reproduces the same shared-tradition failure pattern, providing evidence that the residual reflects a shared limitation of the four backbones we tested rather than a CSD-specific artefact. Practical implication: before reporting CSD cosine as an absolute style-fidelity score, run the diagnostic on the candidate corpus; CSLS is the minimal correction when it fails. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_09030 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | When Style Similarity Scores Fail: Diagnosing Raw CSD Cosine in Artist-Style Evaluation Frochte, Jörg Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Machine Learning I.4.10; I.5.4 Raw cosine in the 768-dimensional output space of the Contrastive Style Descriptor (CSD) is now widely read as an absolute, calibrated style-fidelity score for text-to-image and style-imitation evaluation. We introduce the discrimination gap, a corpus-internal, prototype-free and threshold-free diagnostic that tests whether contrastive style cosines admit an absolute same-versus-different interpretation on a candidate artist corpus. On a 1799-artwork, 91-artist public-domain corpus, raw CSD cosine yields negative point-estimate gaps for $23/91$ artists at the pairwise level ($2/91$ robust under bootstrap) and for $15/91$ in the aggregated-pool scoring regime style-fidelity evaluations typically use. CSLS readout on the frozen backbone reduces the aggregated negative-gap count to $4/91$; combined with positional-embedding interpolation to $336$ pixels it raises unsupervised pair-verification AUC from $0.883$ to $0.905$ across $25$ artist-disjoint splits. We refer to this diagnostic-driven readout protocol on the frozen backbone (CSLS as default, pos-interp $336$ as the stronger optional setting) as CSD+, not a new encoder.A cross-backbone check on CLIP-ViT-L/14, SigLIP-large and DINOv2-Large reproduces the same shared-tradition failure pattern, providing evidence that the residual reflects a shared limitation of the four backbones we tested rather than a CSD-specific artefact. Practical implication: before reporting CSD cosine as an absolute style-fidelity score, run the diagnostic on the candidate corpus; CSLS is the minimal correction when it fails. |
| title | When Style Similarity Scores Fail: Diagnosing Raw CSD Cosine in Artist-Style Evaluation |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Machine Learning I.4.10; I.5.4 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09030 |