What do Models Learn From Training on More Than Text? Measuring Visual Commonsense Knowledge (2022.acl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation methods to measure what language models learn from multimodal training are lacking. |
| Approach: | They propose two evaluation tasks to measure commonsense knowledge in language models by using visual data to evaluate multimodal models and unimodal baselines. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation tasks show that training on a visual modality improves on the visual commonsense knowledge in language models. |
Similar Papers
Visual Commonsense in Pretrained Unimodal and Multimodal Models (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Fig. 1 shows how text-only and image-only models can capture commonsense visual attributes, but reporting bias affects their performance. |
| Approach: | They use a Visual Commonsense Tests dataset to validate their findings . they find multimodal models better reconstruct attribute distributions, but are still subject to reporting bias . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on the unimodal and multimodal models, but is still subject to reporting bias. |
Are Visual-Linguistic Models Commonsense Knowledge Bases? (2022.coling-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | PTLMs are used to extract knowledge from text on demand. |
| Approach: | They compare visual-linguistic and language-only visual-language models in a zero-shot commonsense question answering inference task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models are highly promising on certain types of commonsense knowledge associated with the visual world. |
Understanding ME? Multimodal Evaluation for Fine-grained Visual Commonsense (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models that understand image and text but also cross-reference in-between are lacking in evaluation data resources. |
| Approach: | They propose a multimodal evaluation pipeline to automatically generate question-answer pairs to test models’ understanding of the visual scene, text, and related knowledge. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can answer the highly semantic VCR question correctly but fails to answer related visual question (Q2), textual question (q3), and background knowledge question ( Q4) as shallow mappings with language priors and unbalanced utilization of information between modalities. |
Localization vs. Semantics: Visual Representations in Unimodal and Multimodal Models (2024.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing vision-and-language models perform better on multimodal tasks, but there is little understanding of how multimodal learning can help visual representations. |
| Approach: | They conduct a probing analysis of visual representations in existing vision-and-language models and vision-only models by probing on a broad range of tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves vision-and-language models on label and attribute prediction tasks while vision-only models are stronger on dense prediction tasks. |
Does Visual Grounding Enhance the Understanding of Embodied Knowledge in Large Language Models? (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Despite significant progress in multimodal language models, it remains unclear whether visual grounding enhances their understanding of embodied knowledge compared to text-only models. |
| Approach: | They propose to assess vision-language models’ perceptual abilities across different sensory modalities through vector comparison and question-answering tasks with over 1,700 questions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark assesses the models’ perceptual abilities across different sensory modalities through vector comparison and question-answering tasks with over 1,700 questions. |
How to Adapt Pre-trained Vision-and-Language Models to a Text-only Input? (2022.coling-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current language models have been criticised for learning language from text alone without connection between words and their meaning. |
| Approach: | They propose to train models on more sources than text to provide the lacking connection between words and their meanings. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model adaptation methods perform differently for different models and unimodal model counterparts perform on par with the VL models regardless of adaptation. |
A Systematic Investigation of Commonsense Knowledge in Large Language Models (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Jordan Hoffmann, Cyprien de Masson d’Autume, Phil Blunsom, Aida Nematzadeh
| Challenge: | Recent large language models (LMs) have shown impressive performance on many NLP tasks under the zero-shot and few-shot setup. |
| Approach: | They conduct a systematic and rigorous zero-shot and few-shot commonsense evaluation of large pre-trained language models to better understand their ability to capture commonsensical knowledge. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can exploit surface cues and annotation artefacts without task-specific supervision and is insufficient to achieve human-level commonsense performance. |
Does Vision-and-Language Pretraining Improve Lexical Grounding? (2021.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large pretrained language models (LMs) have been criticized for lack of grounding, i.e., connecting words to their meanings in the physical world. |
| Approach: | They compare vision-and-language (VL) models trained jointly on text and image or video data to find out how they compare to text-only counterparts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms the text-only variants on a commonsense question answering task. |
Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Modern neural language models (LMs) require distinctly un-human-like ways to achieve these results. |
| Approach: | They train a diverse set of LM architectures with and without auxiliary visual supervision on datasets of varying scales. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models exhibit better learning of syntactic categories, lexical relations, semantic features, word similarity and alignment with human neural representations. |
Quantifying the Gaps Between Translation and Native Perception in Training for Multimodal, Multilingual Retrieval (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models that account for perceptual differences in image captions are limited to use in English . culture-based tasks such as recognition, detection, and image retrieval are hindered by relying on English supervision. |
| Approach: | They propose and evaluate caption augmentation strategies to address these gaps . they use captions from german perception and captions that have been machine-translated or human-transcribed from English into german . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models achieve a mean recall improvement of +1.3, but still lack flexibility . cultural differences present in language with respect to object specificity and importance . |