Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Resolving Language and Vision Ambiguities Together: Joint Segmentation & Prepositional Attachment Resolution in Captioned Scenes

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 1604.02125 v4 pith:YPE3CLC3 submitted 2016-04-07 cs.CV cs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.CVcs.CLcs.LG
keywords attachmentlanguageprepositionalresolutionsegmentationapproachphrasereasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an approach to simultaneously perform semantic segmentation and prepositional phrase attachment resolution for captioned images. Some ambiguities in language cannot be resolved without simultaneously reasoning about an associated image. If we consider the sentence "I shot an elephant in my pajamas", looking at language alone (and not using common sense), it is unclear if it is the person or the elephant wearing the pajamas or both. Our approach produces a diverse set of plausible hypotheses for both semantic segmentation and prepositional phrase attachment resolution that are then jointly reranked to select the most consistent pair. We show that our semantic segmentation and prepositional phrase attachment resolution modules have complementary strengths, and that joint reasoning produces more accurate results than any module operating in isolation. Multiple hypotheses are also shown to be crucial to improved multiple-module reasoning. Our vision and language approach significantly outperforms the Stanford Parser (De Marneffe et al., 2006) by 17.91% (28.69% relative) and 12.83% (25.28% relative) in two different experiments. We also make small improvements over DeepLab-CRF (Chen et al., 2015).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Acknowledging Focus Ambiguity in Visual Questions

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VQ-FocusAmbiguity is a 5,500-example dataset annotating all plausible focus regions for visual questions, and state-of-the-art models perform poorly at recognizing and locating focus ambiguity.

Pith tools