uniter
code and pre-trained model checkpoints upon paper acceptance. 2 To Reviewer 1, 3, and 4 Q1: How do perturbations in embedding space compare to those in pixel/token space?
We thank all the reviewers for their insightful and encouraging comments. T o Reviewer 1, 3, and 4 Q1: How do perturbations in embedding space compare to those in pixel/token space? Unlike pixels, tokens are discrete in nature. Q2: What happens if adversarial perturbations are simultaneously added to both image and text domains? Q3: Do the adversarial perturbations make the model more robust to adversarial attacks and paraphrases?
Review for NeurIPS paper: Large-Scale Adversarial Training for Vision-and-Language Representation Learning
Weaknesses: Besides the strength of the paper, I have some concerns about the paper. In this paper, the authors show that by adding adversarial perturbations into the embedding, the model can improve the performance on final downstream tasks. This is great, however, the paper didn't answer whether the proposed method can perform better in the adversarial attack? What is the connection between adding noise in embedding space and pixel/token space? There are multiple ways to test how the proposed method is more robust, for example: - Some downstream tasks focus on paraphrasing, there is a vqa-rephrasing dataset, and I am curious whether injecting the adversarial noise into the embedding space will lead to better performance on this dataset?
TraVLR: Now You See It, Now You Don't! A Bimodal Dataset for Evaluating Visio-Linguistic Reasoning
Chow, Keng Ji, Tan, Samson, Kan, Min-Yen
Numerous visio-linguistic (V+L) representation learning methods have been developed, yet existing datasets do not adequately evaluate the extent to which they represent visual and linguistic concepts in a unified space. We propose several novel evaluation settings for V+L models, including cross-modal transfer. Furthermore, existing V+L benchmarks often report global accuracy scores on the entire dataset, making it difficult to pinpoint the specific reasoning tasks that models fail and succeed at. We present TraVLR, a synthetic dataset comprising four V+L reasoning tasks. TraVLR's synthetic nature allows us to constrain its training and testing distributions along task-relevant dimensions, enabling the evaluation of out-of-distribution generalisation. Each example in TraVLR redundantly encodes the scene in two modalities, allowing either to be dropped or added during training or testing without losing relevant information. We compare the performance of four state-of-the-art V+L models, finding that while they perform well on test examples from the same modality, they all fail at cross-modal transfer and have limited success accommodating the addition or deletion of one modality. We release TraVLR as an open challenge for the research community.
CK-Transformer: Commonsense Knowledge Enhanced Transformers for Referring Expression Comprehension
Zhang, Zhi, Yannakoudakis, Helen, Zhen, Xiantong, Shutova, Ekaterina
The task of multimodal referring expression comprehension (REC), aiming at localizing an image region described by a natural language expression, has recently received increasing attention within the research comminity. In this paper, we specifically focus on referring expression comprehension with commonsense knowledge (KB-Ref), a task which typically requires reasoning beyond spatial, visual or semantic information. We propose a novel framework for Commonsense Knowledge Enhanced Transformers (CK-Transformer) which effectively integrates commonsense knowledge into the representations of objects in an image, facilitating identification of the target objects referred to by the expressions. We conduct extensive experiments on several benchmarks for the task of KB-Ref. Our results show that the proposed CK-Transformer achieves a new state of the art, with an absolute improvement of 3.14% accuracy over the existing state of the art.
Why is Winoground Hard? Investigating Failures in Visuolinguistic Compositionality
Diwan, Anuj, Berry, Layne, Choi, Eunsol, Harwath, David, Mahowald, Kyle
Recent visuolinguistic pre-trained models show promising progress on various end tasks such as image retrieval and video captioning. Yet, they fail miserably on the recently proposed Winoground dataset, which challenges models to match paired images and English captions, with items constructed to overlap lexically but differ in meaning (e.g., "there is a mug in some grass" vs. "there is some grass in a mug"). By annotating the dataset using new fine-grained tags, we show that solving the Winoground task requires not just compositional language understanding, but a host of other abilities like commonsense reasoning or locating small, out-of-focus objects in low-resolution images. In this paper, we identify the dataset's main challenges through a suite of experiments on related tasks (probing task, image retrieval task), data augmentation, and manual inspection of the dataset. Our analysis suggests that a main challenge in visuolinguistic models may lie in fusing visual and textual representations, rather than in compositional language understanding. We release our annotation and code at https://github.com/ajd12342/why-winoground-hard .