Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The curse of language biases in remote sensing VQA: the role of spatial attributes, language diversity, and the need for clear evaluation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.16782 v1 pith:A7WF7NQN submitted 2023-11-28 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords languagersvqaremotesensingbiasesanalysisdataevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Remote sensing visual question answering (RSVQA) opens new opportunities for the use of overhead imagery by the general public, by enabling human-machine interaction with natural language. Building on the recent advances in natural language processing and computer vision, the goal of RSVQA is to answer a question formulated in natural language about a remote sensing image. Language understanding is essential to the success of the task, but has not yet been thoroughly examined in RSVQA. In particular, the problem of language biases is often overlooked in the remote sensing community, which can impact model robustness and lead to wrong conclusions about the performances of the model. Thus, the present work aims at highlighting the problem of language biases in RSVQA with a threefold analysis strategy: visual blind models, adversarial testing and dataset analysis. This analysis focuses both on model and data. Moreover, we motivate the use of more informative and complementary evaluation metrics sensitive to the issue. The gravity of language biases in RSVQA is then exposed for all of these methods with the training of models discarding the image data and the manipulation of the visual input during inference. Finally, a detailed analysis of question-answer distribution demonstrates the root of the problem in the data itself. Thanks to this analytical study, we observed that biases in remote sensing are more severe than in standard VQA, likely due to the specifics of existing remote sensing datasets for the task, e.g. geographical similarities and sparsity, as well as a simpler vocabulary and question generation strategies. While new, improved and less-biased datasets appear as a necessity for the development of the promising field of RSVQA, we demonstrate that more informed, relative evaluation metrics remain much needed to transparently communicate results of future RSVQA methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools