arXiv preprint ·
Do Transaction Prices Reflect Visual Preference? A Diagnostic Study with Multimodal Language Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
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.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
CIRCE Divines LLM Task Complexity from Constraint Structure
Few Trials, Many Metrics: Beta Mixtures for Low-Budget AI Evaluation
Verifying Text-to-SQL Queries under Changing Business Semantics
Threat Modeling Intimate Partner Abuse in Agentic Systems
QUAL: Quantile Alignment Improves Zero-Shot Time-Series Foundation Models
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.