FoodSense: A Multisensory Food Dataset and Benchmark for Predicting Taste, Smell, Texture, and Sound from Images
Authors: Sabab Ishraq, Aarushi Aarushi, Juncai Jiang, Chen Chen
Organizations: College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA · College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Humans routinely infer taste, smell, texture, and even sound from food images a phenomenon well studied in cognitive science. However, prior vision language research on food has focused primarily on recognition tasks such as meal identification, ingredient detection, and nutrition estimation. Image-based prediction of multisensory experience remains largely unexplored. We introduce FoodSense, a human-annotated dataset for cross-sensory inference containing 66,842 participant-image pairs across 2,987 unique food images. Each pair includes numeric ratings (1-5) and free-text descriptors for four sensory dimensions: taste, smell, texture, and sound. To enable models to both predict and explain sensory expectations, we expand short human annotations into image-grounded reasoning traces. A large language model generates visual justifications conditioned on the image, ratings, and descriptors. Using these annotations, we train FoodSense-VL, a vision language benchmark model to produce both multisensory ratings and grounded explanations directly from food images. This work connects cognitive science findings on cross-sensory perception with modern instruction tuning for multimodal models and shows that many popular evaluation metrics are insufficient for visually sensory inference.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Annotation interface and example. Left: A food image as presented to participants (Taco, image 0005). Center: The structured rating task—participants rated each of four sensory dimensions on a 0–7 scale (0 = Can’t tell from picture; 1 = Very bad; 7 = Very good) and provided one to two free-text descriptors per sense. Right: Illustrative annotation for a taco image showing rescaled ratings (1–5) and representative free-text descriptors across all four sensory dimensions.
Figure 2: Dataset statistics for the Multisensory Food Dataset. (a) Distribution of annotator counts per image (mean =22.38 , SD =2.02 ). (b) Kernel density estimates of rescaled ratings (1–5) per sensory dimension, restricted to CanInfer =1 ratings. (c) Proportion of ratings where participants could infer each sensory property from the image. (d) Single-rater reliability ICC(1,1) with 95% confidence intervals; dotted line marks ICC =0.20 . (e) Aggregate label reliability ICC(1,k) with 95% confidence intervals for mean ratings across kˉ≈21 annotators; dotted line marks ICC =0.70 .
Dimension
N
Mean
SD
ICC(1,1) [95% CI]
ICC(1,k) [95% CI]
kˉ
Taste
63,978
3.89
1.08
0.169 [0.160, 0.178]
0.813 [0.803, 0.823]
21.42
Smell
63,259
3.83
1.05
0.189 [0.179, 0.199]
0.831 [0.822, 0.840]
21.18
Texture
64,986
3.74
1.06
0.166 [0.158, 0.175]
0.813 [0.803, 0.822]
21.76
Sound
61,972
3.44
0.99
0.101 [0.094, 0.108]
0.699 [0.683, 0.714]
20.75
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability for the full released dataset (2,987 images), computed on rescaled sensory ratings (1–5) with CanInfer =1 per dimension. ICC(1,1): single-rater reliability; ICC(1,k): aggregate label reliability for mean of kˉ annotators per image. All ICC values significant at p<.0001 .
Figure 3: Pipeline. A Southern Scampi image with human sensory annotations is expanded by Gemma 3 27B IT into image-grounded rationales; Food-Llama judges and filters hallucinated content. FoodSense-VL predicts ratings and explanations from images alone. The output box shows an example texture prediction with visual justification.
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Model
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
0.601
0.426
0.406
0.304
0.435
0.745
0.549
0.542
0.389
0.556
InternVL2.5-26B
0.635
0.423
0.663
0.305
0.507
0.787
0.543
0.802
0.390
0.630
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.528
0.432
0.667
0.730
0.589
0.673
0.569
0.808
0.850
0.725
Gemma 3 27B (base)
0.411
0.505
0.511
0.980
0.602
0.504
0.617
0.633
1.067
0.705
Food-LLaMA-11B
0.558
0.764
0.532
1.108
0.740
0.706
0.979
0.683
1.337
0.926
Table 2: MAE ↓ and RMSE ↓ by sensory dimension.
Spearman ρ↑
Lin’s CCC ↑
Model
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
InternVL2.5-26B
0.171
0.171
0.227
0.140
0.177
0.028
0.063
0.086
0.134
0.078
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
0.271
0.147
0.189
0.181
0.197
0.115
0.064
0.113
0.159
0.113
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.311
0.141
0.225
0.265
0.236
0.159
0.121
0.078
0.140
0.124
Gemma 3 27B (base)
0.196
0.178
0.140
0.208
0.181
0.159
0.151
0.181
0.053
0.136
Food-LLaMA-11B
0.085
0.036
0.108
0.127
0.089
0.074
0.010
0.097
0.040
0.055
Table 3: Spearman ρ↑ and Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) ↑ by sensory dimension. Best in bold .
Pearson r↑
Ordinal Accuracy ↑
Model
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
Taste
Smell
Tex.
Sound
Avg
InternVL2.5-26B
0.229
0.226
0.262
0.187
0.226
0.694
0.646
0.600
0.719
0.665
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
0.328
0.143
0.234
0.208
0.229
0.721
0.651
0.612
0.726
0.678
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.312
0.158
0.233
0.280
0.246
0.703
0.671
0.605
0.616
0.649
Gemma 3 27B (base)
0.217
0.178
0.184
0.263
0.211
0.696
0.489
0.564
0.600
0.587
Food-LLaMA-11B
0.075
0.013
0.123
0.109
0.080
0.561
0.415
0.618
0.300
0.474
Table 4: Pearson r↑ and Ordinal Accuracy ↑ (3-class: Low/Med/High) by sensory dimension. Best in bold .
Setting
MAE ↓
Pearson ↑
Spearman ↑
CCC ↑
σpred
Ord.Acc ↑
W/in 1 ↑
Single-Stage
0.589
0.254
0.227
0.169
0.367
0.593
0.834
Two-Stage (FoodSense-VL)
0.633
0.297
0.274
0.238
0.591
0.542
0.793
Δ (Two − Single)
+0.044
+0.043
+0.047
+0.069
+0.224
− 0.051
− 0.041
Table 5: Ablation: Single-stage (flat) vs. two-stage (curriculum) fine-tuning.
Figure 4: Qualitative sensory inferences for Steak Rice from four models. Human GT: Taste=4.3, Smell=4.3, Texture=4.4, Sound=4.1.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Value
Meaning
0
Can’t tell from picture
1
Very bad
2
Bad
3
Slightly bad
4
Neutral
5
Slightly good
Appendix
Table A1 : Seven-point Likert scale used for sensory ratings.
Figure A1 : Qualtrics survey interface as presented to participants, showing the food image display, seven-point rating scales for each sensory dimension, and free-text descriptor entry fields.
Statistic
Value
Mean annotations per image
22.38
Standard deviation
2.02
Minimum
3
Maximum
42
Total annotations (full dataset)
66,842
Total annotations (training set)
58,443
Appendix
Table B2 : Summary statistics for annotation counts across 2,987 images.
Figure B2 : Distribution of annotation counts per image across the full dataset of 2,987 images. The dashed line indicates the mean (22.38 annotations per image).
Split
Images
Annotations
% of Total
Train
2,185
43,758
74.9%
Validation
292
5,834
10.0%
Test
438
8,851
15.2%
Total
2,915
58,443
100%
Appendix
Table B3 : Dataset partitions with image and annotation counts.
Table B4 : Descriptor vocabulary statistics and top-10 terms by sensory dimension.
Figure B3 : Top-10 descriptor frequencies per sensory dimension across all 2,987 images.
Taste
Smell
Texture
Sound
Taste
—
0.893
0.931
0.759
Smell
0.893
—
0.856
0.726
Texture
0.931
0.856
—
0.840
Sound
0.759
0.726
0.840
—
Appendix
Table B5 : Pearson correlations between per-image mean sensory ratings ( N=2,987 ; all p<.001 ).
Figure B4 : Heatmap of Pearson correlations between per-image mean sensory ratings ( N=2,987 ).
Dimension
Mean Unique
Mean TTR
Top-1 Coverage
Top-3 Coverage
Taste
16.04 (3.22)
0.725 (0.137)
0.218
0.396
Smell
16.75 (3.26)
0.760 (0.135)
0.200
0.367
Texture
14.60 (2.84)
0.658 (0.120)
0.245
0.457
Sound
14.43 (3.08)
0.663 (0.134)
0.232
0.446
Appendix
Table B6 : Per-image descriptor diversity and coverage statistics across 2,987 images. TTR = type-token ratio (higher = more diverse). Top- k coverage = fraction of annotations using one of the k most common descriptors for that image.
Dimension
Pearson r
p -value
Taste
0.249
<.0001
Smell
− 0.047
.011
Texture
0.141
<.0001
Sound
0.068
.0002
Appendix
Table B7 : Pearson correlations between per-image descriptor TTR and rating SD ( N=2,987 ). Higher TTR indicates more diverse descriptors; higher rating SD indicates more numeric disagreement.
Figure C5 : Two annotation examples randomly sampled from the test set (seed = 42). Left: Image 2737 (mac and cheese). Right: Image 0768 (chocolate dessert).
Model
Taste
Smell
Texture
Sound
Human GT
0.502
0.518
0.498
0.385
FoodSense-VL (Two-Stage)
0.499
0.488
0.759
0.619
Single-Stage (lr= 2×10−6 )
0.236
0.392
0.490
0.351
Gemma 3 27B (base)
0.252
0.382
0.461
0.3498
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
0.155
0.252
0.149
0.398
InternVL2.5-26B
0.083
0.075
0.245
0.181
Appendix
Table D8 : Prediction standard deviation ( σpred ) per sense and overall. Human GT row shows the spread of ground-truth mean ratings across the 438 test images. Bold = closest to GT spread.
Model
∼1
∼2
∼3
∼4
∼5
Entropy
Human GT
0.0%
1.5%
30.2%
63.5%
4.7%
1.239
FoodSense-VL (Two-Stage)
1.0%
8.9%
29.7%
48.5%
12.0%
1.769
Single-Stage (lr= 2×10−6 )
0.1%
3.5%
30.6%
62.9%
3.0%
1.269
Gemma 3 27B (base)
0.1%
7.0%
26.3%
63.9%
2.7%
1.337
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
0.0%
0.6%
11.1%
63.9%
24.4%
1.307
InternVL2.5-26B
0.0%
0.2%
2.0%
64.3%
33.6%
1.066
Appendix
Table D9 : Distribution of predicted ratings across bins (percentage of all predictions). Entropy computed as H=−∑pilog2pi over the 5 bins.
Model
Taste
Smell
Texture
Sound
Human GT
3.88±0.50
3.80±0.52
3.74±0.50
3.44±0.39
FoodSense-VL (Two-Stage)
3.88±0.50
3.48±0.49
3.64±0.76
2.62±0.62
Single-Stage
3.82±0.24
3.57±0.39
3.81±0.49
2.51±0.35
Gemma 3 27B (base)
3.85±0.25
3.56±0.38
3.85±0.46
2.38±0.35
LLaVA-v1.6-34B
4.47±0.16
3.90±0.25
3.98±0.15
3.20±0.40
InternVL2.5-26B
4.49±0.08
4.00±0.07
4.17±0.25
3.45±0.18
Appendix
Table D10 : Mean predicted rating ± std per sensory dimension. Human GT shows the mean of annotator-averaged ratings.
Ours
Single
Base
LLaVA
IntVL
Qwen
F-LLaMA
Ours (Two-Stage)
—
.148 ∗
.134 ∗
.312 ∗
.374 ∗
.338 ∗
.125 ∗
Single-Stage
—
—
.036
.460 ∗
.517 ∗
.487 ∗
.274 ∗
Base
—
—
—
.446 ∗
.502 ∗
.472 ∗
.259 ∗
LLaVA
—
—
—
—
.096 ∗
.071 ∗
.249 ∗
InternVL
—
—
—
—
—
.133 ∗
.345 ∗
Qwen
—
—
—
—
—
—
.213 ∗
Appendix
Table D11 : Pairwise KS D -statistics across all model rating distributions (all senses pooled). ∗ p<0.05 .
Figure 26Figure 27Figure 28Figure 29
Sandwich
Steak Rice
Taco
Scampi
Ice Cream
T
S
X
U
T
S
X
U
T
S
X
U
T
S
X
U
T
S
X
U
Human GT
4.1
4.1
4.3
3.6
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.1
4.5
4.4
4.5
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.5
2.7
4.1
3.3
3.7
1.8
FoodSense-VL
FoodSense-VL (Stage 2)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
4.2
4.0
4.5
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
3.5
Base (Gemma 3 27B)
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.5
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.5
4.2
3.8
4.5
2.5
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.0
4.2
3.8
4.5
2.5
Open-source baselines
Appendix
Table E12 : Sensory ratings on six representative food images (1–5 scale). Human GT (mean of ∼ 25 annotators) is shown for comparison. Best model prediction (closest to GT) per cell in bold . “–” = unavailable.
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Sustainable protein discovery lacks the fast computational proxies, analogous to molecular docking or density functional theory, that accelerate drug and materials discovery. Evaluating whether a novel food tastes like its animal-based target requires expensive human sensory panels, bottlenecking the design-build-test loop. We introduce TasteBench, a multimodal benchmark and privacy-preserving competition for sensory prediction, spanning two tasks: a food-level ranking task built on 21K+ human evaluations across 215 plant-based foods in 24 product categories, yielding 935 within-category ranking pairs, and a supporting molecular-level taste classification task over 15K flavor molecules. To enable rigorous interpretation of model performance, we characterize the ground truth: inter-rater agreement among panelists is low (Krippendorff's α=.077), and the split-half reliability ceiling of panel-aggregated rankings is .825, establishing the range within which ML systems on this benchmark should be assessed. We evaluate baselines across four input modalities; on the same pairs panelists rated, the best model achieves .661 pairwise accuracy, competitive with the median individual panelist (.650), and .683 across all within-category pairs. TasteBench provides the evaluation infrastructure and baselines for measuring progress on computational screening for sustainable protein discovery.
Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have revolutionized general visual understanding. However, their application in the food domain remains constrained by benchmarks that rely on coarse-grained categories, single-view imagery, and inaccurate metadata. To bridge this gap, we introduce DiningBench, a hierarchical, multi-view benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs across three levels of cognitive complexity: Fine-Grained Classification, Nutrition Estimation, and Visual Question Answering. Unlike previous datasets, DiningBench comprises 3,021 distinct dishes with an average of 5.27 images per entry, incorporating fine-grained "hard" negatives from identical menus and rigorous, verification-based nutritional data. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 29 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary models. Our experiments reveal that while current VLMs excel at general reasoning, they struggle significantly with fine-grained visual discrimination and precise nutritional reasoning. Furthermore, we systematically investigate the impact of multi-view inputs and Chain-of-Thought reasoning, identifying five primary failure modes. DiningBench serves as a challenging testbed to drive the next generation of food-centric VLM research. All codes are released in https://github.com/meituan/DiningBench.
Song Jin, Juntian Zhang, Xun Zhang +6
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · Meituan · Wuhan University
Multimodal language models achieve near-ceiling scores on food recognition benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether this success reflects genuine cultural understanding or mere visual matching. To probe this distinction, we introduce CulturalMenuBench, a benchmark of 4,870 items in 10 languages across 18 regions; its 10 tasks pair final-dish and step-by-step cooking images with ingredients, procedural text, and regional labels, spanning basic recognition to process-grounded cultural attribution. Evaluating 12 models exposes a substantial knowledge-application gap: models exceeding 94% on standard multiple-choice tasks drop to at most 56% when attributing dishes to Chinese regional cuisines, despite an identical four-way format. Diagnostic analyses explain why: error patterns are consistent with random guessing, accuracy tracks visual distinctiveness rather than cultural structure, and models classify cuisines more accurately from dish names alone than from images (+7-18 points). The knowledge is thus present but cannot be activated through visual input. An ablation confirms these tasks genuinely require procedural evidence: removing sequential cooking images selectively degrades process-grounded tasks while others remain stable. Overall, CulturalMenuBench shows that near-perfect recognition can conceal an inability to apply cultural knowledge, motivating training that explicitly connects perception, procedure, and cultural context. Code and data are publicly available.
Bo Zeng, Linfeng Gao, Peiqin Lin +9
Alibaba Group · Xiamen University · University of Hamburg