REVIEW 2 cited by
Probing Image-Language Transformers for Verb Understanding
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
read the original abstract
Multimodal image-language transformers have achieved impressive results on a variety of tasks that rely on fine-tuning (e.g., visual question answering and image retrieval). We are interested in shedding light on the quality of their pretrained representations -- in particular, if these models can distinguish different types of verbs or if they rely solely on nouns in a given sentence. To do so, we collect a dataset of image-sentence pairs (in English) consisting of 421 verbs that are either visual or commonly found in the pretraining data (i.e., the Conceptual Captions dataset). We use this dataset to evaluate pretrained image-language transformers and find that they fail more in situations that require verb understanding compared to other parts of speech. We also investigate what category of verbs are particularly challenging.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Unveiling the Response of Large Vision-Language Models to Visually Absent Tokens
Feed-forward neurons in LVLMs encode whether a text token is visually grounded, and a detector built on these neurons can reduce hallucination by overriding or replacing ungrounded tokens.
-
A Good CREPE needs more than just Sugar: Investigating Biases in Compositional Vision-Language Benchmarks
Blind text-only likelihood models match or exceed CLIP on many compositionality benchmarks because positives and negatives differ systematically in length, plausibility, or image style.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.