Visual Definition Modeling: Challenging Vision & Language Models to Define Words and Objects
Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2022, ISSN: 2159-5399, Vol: 36, Issue: 10, Page: 11267-11275
2022
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures4
- Readers4
Conference Paper Description
Architectures that model language and vision together have received much attention in recent years. Nonetheless, most tasks in this field focus on end-to-end applications without providing insights on whether it is the underlying semantics of visual objects or words that is captured. In this paper we draw on the established Definition Modeling paradigm and enhance it by grounding, for the first time, textual definitions to visual representations. We name this new task Visual Definition Modeling and put forward DEMETER and DIONYSUS, two benchmarks where, given an image as context, models have to generate a textual definition for a target being either i) a word that describes the image, or ii) an object patch therein. To measure the difficulty of our tasks we finetuned six different baselines and analyzed their performances, which show that a text-only encoder-decoder model is more effective than models pretrained for handling inputs of both modalities concurrently. This demonstrates the complexity of our benchmarks and encourages more research on text generation conditioned on multimodal inputs. The datasets for both benchmarks are available at https://github.com/SapienzaNLP/visual-definitionmodeling as well as the code to reproduce our models.
Bibliographic Details
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know