Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Does VLN Pretraining Work with Nonsensical or Irrelevant Instructions?

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 2311.17280 v4 pith:GXA7JP2N submitted 2023-11-28 cs.CL cs.CV

Does VLN Pretraining Work with Nonsensical or Irrelevant Instructions?

classification cs.CL cs.CV
keywords instructionspretrainingnonsensicalaugmentationdatadownstreamirrelevantperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Data augmentation via back-translation is common when pretraining Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) models, even though the generated instructions are noisy. But: does that noise matter? We find that nonsensical or irrelevant language instructions during pretraining can have little effect on downstream performance for both HAMT and VLN-BERT on R2R, and is still better than only using clean, human data. To underscore these results, we concoct an efficient augmentation method, Unigram + Object, which generates nonsensical instructions that nonetheless improve downstream performance. Our findings suggest that what matters for VLN R2R pretraining is the quantity of visual trajectories, not the quality of instructions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.