When Style Similarity Scores Fail: Diagnosing Raw CSD Cosine in Artist-Style Evaluation

TL;DR

This paper introduces the discrimination gap diagnostic to evaluate the reliability of raw cosine similarity scores in artist-style evaluation, revealing limitations and proposing corrections for more accurate style-fidelity assessment.

Contribution

It presents a diagnostic method to identify when raw CSD cosine scores are unreliable and demonstrates improved evaluation accuracy using CSLS readout and positional interpolation.

Findings

Raw CSD cosine scores often fail to reliably distinguish artists.

CSLS readout reduces false positives in style verification.

Diagnostic protocol improves the reliability of style similarity scores.

Abstract

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.