Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Reassessing Evaluation Practices in Visual Question Answering: A Case Study on Out-of-Distribution Generalization

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 2205.12191 v2 pith:AFA5YOHT submitted 2022-05-24 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords modelsdatageneralizationansweringdistributionevaluationfindmultimodal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Vision-and-language (V&L) models pretrained on large-scale multimodal data have demonstrated strong performance on various tasks such as image captioning and visual question answering (VQA). The quality of such models is commonly assessed by measuring their performance on unseen data that typically comes from the same distribution as the training data. However, when evaluated under out-of-distribution (out-of-dataset) settings for VQA, we observe that these models exhibit poor generalization. We comprehensively evaluate two pretrained V&L models under different settings (i.e. classification and open-ended text generation) by conducting cross-dataset evaluations. We find that these models tend to learn to solve the benchmark, rather than learning the high-level skills required by the VQA task. We also find that in most cases generative models are less susceptible to shifts in data distribution compared to discriminative ones, and that multimodal pretraining is generally helpful for OOD generalization. Finally, we revisit assumptions underlying the use of automatic VQA evaluation metrics, and empirically show that their stringent nature repeatedly penalizes models for correct responses.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Mitigating Easy Option Bias in Multiple-Choice Question Answering

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In six VQA benchmarks, models can often choose the correct option from image plus options alone, and the GroundAttack toolkit generates visually plausible hard negatives to remove this shortcut.

  2. FRAMES-VQA: Benchmarking Fine-Tuning Robustness across Multi-Modal Shifts in Visual Question Answering

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A benchmark of ten VQA datasets shows SPD wins on in-distribution and near-OOD accuracy, FTP wins on far-OOD accuracy, and question shifts dominate joint embedding shifts after fine-tuning.

Pith tools