GeoDiv: Framework for Measuring Geographical Diversity in Text-to-Image Models

All synthetic datasets were generated using publicly available models from the Hugging Face Hub. Default generation settings provided by the respective model repositories were used unless otherwise specified. Image generation was performed via the diffusers library, using standard inference pipelines. Prompts were constructed per entity-country pair using the template: “A photo of a/an <entity> in <country>”. Each model was queried to generate $250$ images per entity-country pair, totaling $40{,}000$ images per model.

The models used are:

• •

  Stable Diffusion 2.1 (SD2.1)¹¹1https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1

• •

  Stable Diffusion 3 (SD3m)²²2https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium

• •

  Stable Diffusion 3.5 (SD3.5)³³3https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3.5-large

• •

  FLUX.1-dev (FLUX.1)⁴⁴4https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev

SD2.1 images were generated at a resolution of $768\times 768$, while SD3m, SD3.5, and FLUX.1 used $1024\times 1024$. For reproducibility, generation was performed with fixed seeds for each batch. No further post-processing was applied to the generated images.

Image generation experiments were conducted on an NVIDIA RTX 6000 GPU (48GB VRAM). For all LLM and VLM-based tasks, including question-answer generation and VQA, we use Gemini-2.5-Flash (Google, 2024) accessed via the Vertex AI API (Cloud, 2024) with dynamic thinking enabled for optimal token efficiency as well as batch processing for cost and time efficiency. The estimated cost for computing the VDI component of our diversity score, including visibility checks and VQA for both entity and background analysis, is approximately $\mathdollar 58.64$ per entity-country-question combination (across $250$ images per set). The SEVI score computation for the same combination costs approximately $\mathdollar 9.46$, resulting in a total cost of $\mathdollar 68.10$ per complete diversity assessment. On the other hand, experiments using Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct-AWQ, performed locally using an NVIDIA RTX A5000 (24GB VRAM), incur no additional computational costs but require significantly longer processing times.

As each entity may have its own distinct features, we generate questions and answers inquiring about its various attributes using an ensemble of $5$ LLMs, later consolidating them using a neutral one (claude-opus-4-1@20250805 ⁵⁵5https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-1). Here, we specify the names and model versions of each such LLM for reproducibility ease.

• •

  gemini-2.5-pro (Google, 2024)

• •

  gpt-4o-2024-08-06 ⁶⁶6https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4o

• •

  Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct (Bai et al., 2025)

• •

  Mistral-Small-3.2-24B-Instruct-2506 ⁷⁷7https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.2-24B-Instruct-2506

• •

  Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct ⁸⁸8https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct

The prompts used for these models can be found in the publicly released codebase.

We use the Gemini-2.5-flash model for all our experiments due to its strong empirical performance (§4.2). Across all stages, the LLM and VLM are configured with a temperature of $0.0$, top-p value of $0.01$, and top-k value of $1$ to enforce deterministic generations. The maximum number of output tokens is set to $4000$, while thinking budget is set to dynamic mode. All experiments are executed using batch-processing mode for computational efficiency.

For calculating background diversity, we classify whether each image depicts an indoor or an outdoor scene (see subsection 3 in the main paper). Table 2 details the indoor-outdoor distribution achieved from this step before conducting the remaining VQA steps of the pipeline. Since our chosen entities are inspired by those analyzed in the GeoDE dataset (Ramaswamy et al., 2023), we further mention the groups (indoor common, indoor rare, outdoor common, outdoor rare) to which each of the chosen entities belong to, as assigned by the authors. Notably, while most of the GeoDE images adhere to their assigned indoor/outdoor groups, synthetic datasets display major deviations in depiction of typically indoor entities like bags, chairs, stoves, and cooking pots, frequently generating them in outdoor settings.

Most entity-question pairs fail the visibility check for fewer than 5% of images. Table 3 highlights few of those with higher failure rates. All findings are qualitatively verified through image inspection to confirm the reasons for non-answerability. Below, we list our observations for each entity.

Stove images that are traditional wood-fired or charcoal-fired, fail for questions inquiring about the type of stove, and those with hidden/distorted cooktops fail for questions querying about the cooktop type. The latter is higher for SD2.1, which shows depictions of distorted renderings of traditional or repurposed stoves with no discernable cooktop, and FLUX.1 which has similar depictions of wood-burning compartments with no visible cooktops.

House images fail for questions about doors when the door features are obscured. Car images where the roof is not clearly visible fails for the question on roof types. Daylight images of cars often fail for the question on whether the lights are on or off due to difficulty in observing the head and tail lights. Chairs in which the back is fully covered with fabric or obscured by cushions tend to fail on the question about the type of backrest (solid, slatted, or woven). Interestingly, this failure rate is lower for SD2.1 and SD3.5, suggesting a lower proportion of cushioned chairs in these datasets, a pattern corroborated by the responses to the question on cushioned versus hard seats. Storefront images with only display window visible or shutters fail for the question on type of entrance.

We define a question as “low-coverage” if the visibility checks retain fewer than $50\%$ of the original image set. Such questions are excluded from further processing. Among the $111$ unique questions considered for entity diversity, we identify two that fall into this category: “What kind of controls are visible on the stove: knobs, buttons, or a touchscreen display?” and “Does the bag have a zipper, buckle, or flap closure?”. The first is inherently difficult to answer using synthetic images, while in the second case, bag images often do not clearly reveal the type of closure.

During the VQA stage (i.e., the stage of obtaining answers to the questions from images before calculating the VDI scores) we add a ‘None of the Above’ option to the answer list for each question, as discussed in Subsection 4 (main paper). Table 4 details the NOTA percentages across datasets for all questions per entity. We qualitatively verify these cases by visually inspecting the images and the VQA model’s reasoning for selecting NOTA.

• •

  Stove has the highest NoTA percentage at $5.51\%$. The first question with high NOTA is “What is the primary material of the stove’s body: stainless steel or enamel/painted metal?” It is comparatively higher for SD3.5, with a lot of rustic representations of stove with iron / stone / corrugated metal bodies, except for the UK, USA, and Japan. The other question with high NOTA is “What type of cooktop does the stove have: gas burners, electric coils, or a flat glass/ceramic top?” which again fails for images with representations of traditional stoves.

• •

  For storefront, all datasets show similar NOTA (avg. $4.32\%$), mostly due to two questions: “Is the facade primarily made of brick, wood, or glass?” and “Is the storefront entrance a single door, double doors, or a revolving door?”. For the first, option Concrete/Stone may be missing. For the second question, open entrance (like in malls) and accordion-style metal gates are absent. In SD3m, both questions show stronger geographical disparities with lower NOTA for UK, USA, and Italy.

• •

  For bag, the higher NOTA rate is observed to be a result of question on “Does the bag have a zipper, buckle, or flap closure?” which examines an attribute that is inherently open-ended. Thus, bags with drawstrings, open-topped totes, plastic bags with tied handles are not represented by this question.

• •

  The slightly high NOTA rate for car results from “Is the car a sedan or SUV?” which does not cover all types of cars, missing options like hatchbacks.

• •

  For Cooking pot, backyard, chair, house, plate of food, and dog, NOTA rate is consistently $<3\%$ across all datasets.

  For questions where more than $30\%$ of images result in NOTA, we include an ‘Others’ as an option in the distribution.

In section 5 of the main paper, we discuss the SEVI and VDI diversities across datasets and countries. In this section, we perform similar analyses, but based on the entities we chose for this paper. Our observations are noted below:

Figure 8 presents heatmaps of entity-diversity scores across entities and countries.

Dataset Level. SD2.1 achieves the highest dataset-level average ($0.51$) and SD3.5 the lowest ($0.40$), as is evident in Figure 8. The variance across countries per dataset is generally $\approx 0.01$ across all T2I models, and across entities is in range $[0.001,0.008]$. Variance is relatively small, reflecting homogeneous generations.

Entity Level. The average diversity across all datasets and countries varies notably by entity type. Bags show the highest average diversity at about $0.58$, followed by stoves ($0.52$) and dogs ($0.50$). Chairs have the lowest average diversity at around $0.32$, and plate of food also scores low at about $0.36$. House exhibits the highest variance across dataset ($0.004$). Chair and dog show the lowest dataset variances ($\approx 0.0007$), indicating consistent diversity levels across datasets for these entities. Variance across countries within an entity is generally higher than variance across datasets, with cooking pots showing the highest geographic variance ($\approx 0.02$), followed by stoves ($\approx 0.02$) and dogs ($\approx 0.01$). Plate of food and cars have the lowest country-level variances ($\approx 0.002$ and $\approx 0.004$, respectively), suggesting more consistent diversity worldwide for these categories.

Country Level spread is narrow, from $0.43$ (Mexico) to $0.47$ (Japan), indicating that the country-level differences are subtle compared to dataset and entity-level differences. This is evident from Figure 8 which shows higher variation horizontally (along Entity) than vertically (along Country). Cross-country stability (coefficient of variation across country means) indicate SD3.5 is the most polarized by country (SD2.1 ($\approx 0.04$), SD3m ($\approx 0.04$), FLUX.1 ($\approx 0.05$), and SD3.5 ($\approx 0.07$)).

As discussed in § 5 in the main paper, we observe both global and cross-country biases within model generations. The below observations relate to most countries, making the biases in global in nature.

1. 1.

   Chairs without backrests are absent in SD3.5 and FLUX.1, chairs with single central bases never appear; exclusively multi-legged designs are visible in all the synthetic datasets. SD3.5 and FLUX.1 have a bias towards brown coloured, cushioned, and solid-backed chairs, while SD2.1 defaults to slatted-backed, wooden chairs.

2. 2.

   Backyard images in FLUX.1 are almost always grass-only, with distinct pathways and plants and shrubs. Interestingly, while all datasets hardly show any grass cover for Nigeria, FLUX.1 images for Nigeria are largely biased towards the same.

3. 3.

   SD2.1 images of Bag default to non-geometric/unstructured shaped bags, FLUX.1 defaults to brown-coloured, leather bags.

4. 4.

   While majority of SD2.1 car images do not have logos or brand badges, SD3m and FLUX.1 almost always do.

5. 5.

   Single-handled Cooking pots or those without handles are hardly generated, defaulting to only multiple-handled variations across all the datasets.

6. 6.

   SD3m images only show dogs with folded ears unlike the other datasets which show higher diversity.

7. 7.

   Plate of food displays one of the lowest diversities across datasets, always depicting vegetables, dense with multiple types of food in the plate, almost always with some garnish, and white, round plates.

8. 8.

   The cooktop type of Stove images in SD3.5 and FLUX.1 are only gas burners.

9. 9.

   FLUX.1 always depicts multi-storeyed houses with chimneys, porches, grass and paving ground-cover (except Egypt), trees.

Such biases vary in severity across datasets, but others reveal alarming geographic variations. Here we note some examples of such biases across countries:

1. 1.

   Chair: SD3m shows very few cushioned chairs for Nigeria and the Philippines, and images for Egypt show an over-representation of chairs with woven backrests, whereas the UK and USA samples rarely depict hard-seated chairs.

2. 2.

   Backyard: SD2.1 and SD3m images for Nigeria show no patio / deck, while for Spain it is always present. There is a striking bias in depiction of primary ground cover in most datasets, for Nigeria (only dirt/gravel), India and Egypt (no grass), USA (only grass). UK and USA images are always depicted with outdoor furniture, while it is biased towards absence for Nigeria.

3. 3.

   Bag images show country-specific biases for material: SD2.1 and SD3.5 bags are biased towards fabric in general, but Nigeria has a higher proportion of plastic, while the UK, USA, Italy and Japan are the only countries showing leather; SD3m shows only fabric bags for India; Mexico shows higher proportion of patterned and fabric bags, even in FLUX.1 which is otherwise biased towards leather. SD3.5 images for Egypt, India, Mexico and Turkey do not have any visible brand logo or label.

4. 4.

   Car images show a consistent bias towards unpaved surfaces for Nigeria and Egypt across most datasets, including in FLUX.1 which otherwise defaults to paved surfaces. SD3.5 images for Mexico do not show logos or brand badges, while defaulting to always showing for most other countries.

5. 5.

   Storefront images in FLUX.1 always have lights on except in Nigeria. SD3m shows higher diversity for presence of sidewalk only for Nigeria, leaning towards ‘no’, whereas it defaults to ‘yes’ for other countries.

6. 6.

   Stove shows high disparity in representation across countries, especially in SD3.5. In SD3.5, UK and USA only have multiple burner stoves while India, Nigeria, and Egypt only show single burner ones. In fact, SD3.5 has disproportionately chooses cooktop type as others for almost all countries, especially Egypt ($>93\%$), while UK and USA are equally biased towards gas burners. SD2.1 doesn’t show ovens along with the stoves for most countries, except in USA where it exclusively shows those with ovens.

7. 7.

   House images for Egypt and UAE show a bias towards being depicted solely as flat-roofed. Ground cover for Egypt, Nigeria, India never show grass, while USA always shows only grass. SD3m doesn’t even show paving as ground cover for Egypt, Nigeria, India, only dirt/gravel. For SD3.5, house images of Egypt share distinct features compared to the other countries, owing to its overrepresentation of stones as the primary construction material, and dirt/gravel as the ground cover (see Fig. 9).

There are also some country-specific patterns that seem to be consistent across datasets and entities. For example, there is an apparent correlation between China and the colour red. While FLUX.1 bag images are biased towards brown colour, in case of China it is biased towards red. Some other entities and datasets that show red-colour bias for China include Chairs and Bags in SD3m, and Storefront in SD2.1, SD3.5, and FLUX.1.

Figure 10 illustrates the entity- and country-wise background diversity score heatmaps. Compared to Entity Diversity Scores, the Background Diversity Scores are lower.

Dataset Level. The overall average background diversity across all synthetic datasets and entities is $0.31$. As with entity diversity, SD2.1 scores the highest at $0.35$, followed by FLUX.1 ($0.32$) and SD3m ($0.31$). SD3.5 records the lowest at $0.28$. The variance across countries per dataset is approximately $0.02$, and across entities is in range [0.001, 0.009].

Entity Level. Highest background diversity is for dogs ($0.42$) and cars ($0.40$), reflecting naturally varied scenes. Lowest are plate of food ($0.10$) and storefront ($0.21$), both entities with limited background depictions across generated images. As Figure 10 shows, plate of food images with no background context were dropped from the VQA pipeline through the visibility checks. Largest dataset-to-dataset disagreement occurs for bags and cars ($0.01$), suggesting models differ most in how they situate these objects. Chairs ($0.03$) and dogs ($0.02$) show the highest cross-country variability, implying strong geographic differences in their backgrounds.

Country Level. Highest background diversity is seen in Indonesia ($0.37$), Nigeria ($0.36$), and Colombia ($0.35$). Lowest diversity appears in Italy ($0.25$), Spain ($0.27$), and the UK ($0.27$). Overall, developing regions (Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines) tend to show richer background variation, while European countries (Italy, Spain, UK) exhibit more uniform contexts. China ($0.08$) and Italy ($0.08$) show the lowest variance, suggesting more consistent backgrounds across different objects.

Summary. We evaluate both entity- and background-level diversity across datasets by comparing average diversity scores, entity-wise rankings, and per-country variation (see Table 7).

Figure 11 details the country-entity wise affluence Diversity-Scores. It clearly shows which for which entities and T2I models, which countries show least variance in Affluence level, whereas overall, the diversity across T2I models appears similar.

Figure 12 details the country-entity wise maintenance Diversity-scores. FLUX.1 has remarkably low diversity in terms of its maintenance, across countries and entities.

Table 8 provides the entity-country wise counts of images in the GeoDE dataset used in this work.

The GeoDE real-world dataset has an average diversity score of $0.60$, noticeably higher than that of the synthetic datasets analyzed (which range roughly between $0.40$ to $0.51$). Despite this higher diversity, GeoDE still exhibits inherent biases. For example, while generated images of cars display reasonable variability in viewing angles, GeoDE car images tend to be biased towards side views. This highlights how even carefully curated real datasets have distributional skew.

GeoDE shows the strongest background variation ($0.41$), higher than the T2I models. However, background diversity is still significantly lower than entity diversity-score ($0.60$). Figure 13 shows the heatmaps for GeoDE across all four axes of diversity.

Table LABEL:tab:long-entity-questions provides the entity-wise question and answer-lists used for calculating entity diversity.

We validate the SEVI and VDI components of GeoDiv by conducting rigorous human studies, as shown in subsection 4.2 (main paper). For studies conducted on each axes, we utilize the Prolific platform (Prolific, 2024). For the SEVI component, we enquire the crowdworkers (hired from $14$ different countries, excluding Nigeria and Turkey) about the Affluence and Maintenance in the images shown, on the same scale of $1$ to $5$ as defined for these two dimensions in Section 3 (main paper). For the VDI scores, we hire $3$ crowdworkers per country, totaling 42 participants, and report the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient $\rho$ between the LLM-predicted Affluence and Maintenance scores with the corresponding average human scores. Each annotator is allowed a span of $30$ minutes to complete the survey. The instructions for the study, specific to Japan as an example, including a question to assess the Cultural Localization of images (discussed in Appendix L) are shown in Figure I.1. A screenshot of instructions can be seen in Figure 15.

For VDI, instead of directly asking for diversity scores, we validate the performance of the VQA model by obtaining answers for a subset of image-question pairs from the crowdworkers, where equal number of questions enquire about the entity and the background respectively. Three crowdworkers are randomly hired for this task, and the overall annotation requires around $45$ minutes to complete. In addition to the VQA questions, we ask every user to rate the images on a) their realism (on a Likert-scale of $1$ to $5$), where a high score denotes high realism, and b) the confidence of the user in answering the question (on a Likert-scale of $1$ to $5$), where a high score denotes high confidence. The exact instructions for annotation are described in Figure I.1. A screenshot of an image and the questions asked for it can be seen in Figure 17.

Each crowdworker is paid at a rate of $\mathbf{\mathdollar 8}$ per hour.

While our VQA pipeline employs a closed-source model (Gemini 2.5 Flash), it can be substituted with any efficient open-source alternative. In this section, we examine the correlation between the diversity scores produced by Gemini 2.5 Flash and those obtained from Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct-AWQ across the four diversity axes. The analysis is conducted on one synthetic dataset (FLUX.1) for six entities (Bag, Chair, Cooking Pot, House, Plate of Food, and Storefront) spanning all countries considered in the main study. We additionally report the correlation for real-world dataset (GeoDE) as well (see Table LABEL:tab:openvsclosedappendix).

Both the closed and open model shows high agreement across all four diversity axes on both the synthetic (FLUX.1) and real (GeoDE) datasets, indicating broadly consistent scoring behavior. The average correlation across entities and diversity axes is 0.831 for FLUX.1 and 0.826 for GeoDE, respectively.

The previous section shows the robustness of GeoDiv to varying models. We further analyse the statistical behaviour of GeoDiv scores across prompt and seed variations.

Robustness to Varying Image Generation Prompts. In this work, we evaluate the geo-diversity with respect to ‘default (minimal) prompts’ to analyse what attribute values the T2I model associates to certain geographies without explicit mention. For this analysis, we try the following prompt variations which have minimal semantic changes to generate 100 images for the USA, Colombia, India and Egypt across the 3 entities (house, chair, stove) using 2 models (SD2.1 and FLUX.1).

As our original prompt, Variant 1 and Variant 2 are very neutral, with the only difference to our original prompt being that the generated image does not have to be a photo but could also be a drawing or cartoon. Variant 3 additionally uses more sophisticated wording, “located in” instead of “in”, potentially preconditioning the models in a specific way. We discuss our observations below:

• •

  SD2.1 exhibits high rank-consistency among the prompt variations across all four axes, indicating that its country-level diversity scores are largely insensitive to them. The diversity scores obtained from every prompt variant achieves strong agreement with the scores from the original images, with high overall Spearman correlations at $\rho=0.80$ (variant 1), $\rho=0.85$ (variant 2) and $\rho=0.80$ (variant 3). This shows that the underlying diversity patterns learned by SD2.1 remain stable even when prompt phrasing is slightly altered.

• •

  FLUX.1 is more sensitive to prompt changes than SD2.1. The correlations are $\rho=0.65$ (variant 1), $\rho=0.80$ (variant 2), and $\rho=0.45$ (variant 3), which are still significantly high. This observation crucially indicates that different image-generative models exhibit differing levels of sensitivity to prompts.

We observe that the correlation scores for FLUX are most affected by changes along the background axis. Even small modifications to the prompt induce different semantic directions in the diffusion model. For example, the phrase “A photo of” pushes the model toward more realistic and commonly photographed environments, whereas “an image of” broadens the modality to include stock-image-like compositions, studio setups, or cleaner, more curated scenes.

These shifts are visible in our empirical distributions. For instance, variant 1 images of stove show a marked increase in clean, organized kitchen layouts, consistent with a stock-photo bias triggered by the more generic “image” phrasing. Similarly, for chair, variant 3 increases the frequency of courtyard or tiled surfaces while reducing natural ground textures, suggesting that the word “located” pushes the model to place objects within more explicitly constructed or architectural contexts.

Taken together, these examples illustrate that different variations of the prompt introduce distinct semantic steering behaviours that can subtly shift the generated distributions. To avoid introducing unintended stylistic biases and to remain grounded in realistic depictions, we therefore adopt the most neutral form of the prompt as our standard.

Robustness to Variation of VQA Prompts. We perturb the SEVI prompts to the VLM for both affluence and maintenance via GPT. The results in Table LABEL:tab:_sevi-perturb1 show that the scores change negligeably from the original (orig) with the VLM prompt perturbation (pert).

Robustness to Varying Image Budgets. To assess the statistical stability of our diversity metric, we evaluated how diversity scores change as a function of the number of generated images. For each image-budget $n\in{10,50,100,150,200,250}$, we generated three independent samples using different random seeds. For each axis of our metric (affluence, maintenance, entity, and background), we calculate the normalized hill numbers for each country-entity-dataset triplet and take the average across the three seeds. We list our observations below:

• •

  A budget of 100-150 images per concept-country pair is sufficient for stable and reproducible metric estimation. Across all axes, diversity scores converge smoothly as the number of images increases. Large fluctuations are visible at $<50$ images, which diminish substantially, and finally become negligible after 100 images. For 150-250 images, confidence intervals are extremely narrow, indicating high reliability (see Figure 18).

• •

  Consistent Model and Country Ranking Across Image Budgets. The real-word dataset GeoDE still exhibits the highest diversity scores, and Flux the lowest. This pattern persists across all 4 diversity axes and all values of $n\geq 50$ (see Figure 18), and holds true for the ranking of the studied countries as well (see Figure 19).

• •

  These results suggest that the metric is statistically well-behaved and convergent, suitable for large-scale quantitative evaluation. The width of $95\%$ confidence intervals decreases monotonically with the number of images. This indicates that seed-induced randomness vanishes with larger sample sizes, and the metric’s uncertainty is well-behaved and predictable.

Robustness to Re-runs and Different Seed Image Sets We rerun the full pipeline three times on the same set of 250 SD3m-generated Indian house images and observe at most a 0.01 standard deviation in the resulting scores (Entity: 0.009, Background: 0.001, Affluence: 0.013, Maintenance: 0.006, overall: 0.007). We additionally generate three independent sets of SD3m images for the same entity-country pair using different seeds and find a maximum standard deviation of only 0.05 across all GeoDiv axes (Entity: 0.018, Background: 0.044, Affluence: 0.023, Maintenance: 0.008, overall: 0.023).

Our human validation exhibits strong inter-annotator agreement across both axes, demonstrating the reliability of the collected scores. For the SEVI axis, majority consensus is reached in $85\%$ of the $1,120$ annotated images, and the ordinal consistency is robust: Kendall’s $\tau=0.54$ for Affluence and $0.53$ for Maintenance, with Spearman’s $\rho=0.61$ for both, levels comparable to or exceeding agreement reported in prior work (e.g., Cho et al. [1]). For the VDI axis, annotators show high pairwise agreement, with $87\%$ agreement on entity-diversity and $80\%$ on background-diversity questions. These results indicate substantial annotator consensus and confirm that the human annotations provide a stable and reliable foundation for validating GeoDiv’s axes.

In the main paper, we analyze the relationship between the proposed VDI metrics and the Vendi-Score (Friedman & Dieng, 2023), a measure of visual diversity within image sets. Specifically, we compute the Pearson correlation between the Vendi-Score and the four aspects of GeoDiv: (a) Entity Diversity, (b) Background Diversity, and (c) Affluence Diversity, (d) Maintenance Diversity. The country-wise correlations, averaged across datasets and entities vary ($\rho=0.56$, $0.23$, $0.37$ and $0.06$ respectively, as shown in Table 15). We find a moderate correlation for Entity-Appearance, and weak to very weak correlation for Affluence, Background-Appearance and Maintenance, showing that Vendi-Score focuses mostly on the primary entity, and that our metrics capture aspects of image diversity that go beyond general visual dissimilarity.

Importantly, while Vendi-Score offers a quantitative estimate of diversity, it is non-interpretable, making it difficult to explain why a particular image group receives a high or low score. In contrast, the SEVI and VDI metrics are inherently interpretable: they are grounded in entropy computed from VQA-derived answers to specific semantic questions, allowing for a more transparent understanding of what drives a diversity score.

Teotia et al. (2025) measure image diversity by querying reliable VQA models on entity attributes and use VQA-Score (Lin et al., 2024) to estimate diversity. However, there are key differences from our GeoDiv approach. First, it ignores geo-diversity, focusing solely on entity-appearance variation. Second, unlike GeoDiv, which collects separate attribute-value sets per entity, DIMCIM uses a fixed set of attributes shared across all entities, making it highly restrictive. Its scores are also less interpretable, often appearing uniform across T2I generations, for example, for the question “What material is the bag made of?”, DIMCIM assigns a high score ($0.8$) even if all bags are leather, whereas GeoDiv gives a more realistic score ($0.18$). Overall, GeoDiv provides a more comprehensive framework for evaluating geo-diversity.