REVIEW 2 cited by
Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionality
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
We present a novel task and dataset for evaluating the ability of vision and language models to conduct visio-linguistic compositional reasoning, which we call Winoground. Given two images and two captions, the goal is to match them correctly - but crucially, both captions contain a completely identical set of words, only in a different order. The dataset was carefully hand-curated by expert annotators and is labeled with a rich set of fine-grained tags to assist in analyzing model performance. We probe a diverse range of state-of-the-art vision and language models and find that, surprisingly, none of them do much better than chance. Evidently, these models are not as skilled at visio-linguistic compositional reasoning as we might have hoped. We perform an extensive analysis to obtain insights into how future work might try to mitigate these models' shortcomings. We aim for Winoground to serve as a useful evaluation set for advancing the state of the art and driving further progress in the field. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/facebook/winoground.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Autonomous VR-Based Risk Detection for Situational Awareness in Dangerous Settings
A robot using GPT-4o labeled hazards in a simulated disaster room, and VR users preferred and rated these annotations highly, though the study lacks a controlled baseline comparison.
-
Hazard or Anomaly? Evaluating VLMs for Understanding Dangers and Discrepancies
Current VLMs tend to label anomalous scenes as hazardous, and a four-way hazard/anomaly benchmark exposes this conflation more clearly than binary safe/unsafe tests.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.