Naming, Describing, and Quantifying Visual Objects in Humans and LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06935v3
• Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:49:06 GMT
• Title: Naming, Describing, and Quantifying Visual Objects in Humans and LLMs
• Authors: Alberto Testoni, Juell Sprott, Sandro Pezzelle,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate Vision & Language Large Language Models (VLLMs) on three categories (nouns, attributes, and quantifiers) We find mixed evidence on the ability of VLLMs to capture human naming preferences at generation time.
• Score: 5.59181673439492
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While human speakers use a variety of different expressions when describing the same object in an image, giving rise to a distribution of plausible labels driven by pragmatic constraints, the extent to which current Vision & Language Large Language Models (VLLMs) can mimic this crucial feature of language use is an open question. This applies to common, everyday objects, but it is particularly interesting for uncommon or novel objects for which a category label may be lacking or fuzzy. Furthermore, similar patterns of variation are observed among human speakers for highly context-sensitive expressions, such as the quantifiers 'few' or 'most'. In our work, we evaluate VLLMs (FROMAGe, BLIP-2, LLaVA) on three categories (nouns, attributes, and quantifiers) where humans show great subjective variability concerning the distribution over plausible labels, using datasets and resources mostly under-explored in previous work. Our results reveal mixed evidence on the ability of VLLMs to capture human naming preferences at generation time: while some models are good at mimicking human distributions for nouns and attributes, all of them fail to assign quantifiers, a task that requires more accurate, high-level reasoning.

Related papers

• Perception of Visual Content: Differences Between Humans and Foundation Models [4.251488927334905]
  This study explores the similarity between human-generated and ML-generated annotations of images across diverse socio-economic contexts. We aim to understand differences in perception and identify potential biases in content interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T07:37:04Z)
• Verbalized Representation Learning for Interpretable Few-Shot Generalization [130.8173035901391]
  Verbalized Representation Learning (VRL) is a novel approach for automatically extracting human-interpretable features for object recognition. Our method captures inter-class differences and intra-class commonalities in the form of natural language. VRL achieves a 24% absolute improvement over prior state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T01:55:08Z)
• Lost in Inference: Rediscovering the Role of Natural Language Inference for Large Language Models [36.983534612895156]
  In the recent past, a popular way of evaluating natural language understanding (NLU) was to consider a model's ability to perform natural language inference (NLI) tasks. This paper focuses on five different NLI benchmarks across six models of different scales. We investigate if they are able to discriminate models of different size and quality and how their accuracies develop during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T13:09:36Z)
• Tomato, Tomahto, Tomate: Measuring the Role of Shared Semantics among Subwords in Multilingual Language Models [88.07940818022468]
  We take an initial step on measuring the role of shared semantics among subwords in the encoder-only multilingual language models (mLMs) We form "semantic tokens" by merging the semantically similar subwords and their embeddings. inspections on the grouped subwords show that they exhibit a wide range of semantic similarities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T08:38:32Z)
• Investigating Idiomaticity in Word Representations [9.208145117062339]
  We focus on noun compounds of varying levels of idiomaticity in two languages (English and Portuguese) We present a dataset of minimal pairs containing human idiomaticity judgments for each noun compound at both type and token levels. We define a set of fine-grained metrics of Affinity and Scaled Similarity to determine how sensitive the models are to perturbations that may lead to changes in idiomaticity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T21:05:01Z)
• Are LLMs Models of Distributional Semantics? A Case Study on Quantifiers [14.797001158310092]
  We argue that distributional semantics models struggle with truth-conditional reasoning and symbolic processing. Contrary to expectations, we find that LLMs align more closely with human judgements on exact quantifiers versus vague ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T19:28:35Z)
• Leveraging vision-language models for fair facial attribute classification [19.93324644519412]
  General-purpose vision-language model (VLM) is a rich knowledge source for common sensitive attributes. We analyze the correspondence between VLM predicted and human defined sensitive attribute distribution. Experiments on multiple benchmark facial attribute classification datasets show fairness gains of the model over existing unsupervised baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T18:37:15Z)
• Syntax and Semantics Meet in the "Middle": Probing the Syntax-Semantics Interface of LMs Through Agentivity [68.8204255655161]
  We present the semantic notion of agentivity as a case study for probing such interactions. This suggests LMs may potentially serve as more useful tools for linguistic annotation, theory testing, and discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T16:24:01Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Exploiting Unlabeled Data with Vision and Language Models for Object Detection [64.94365501586118]
  Building robust and generic object detection frameworks requires scaling to larger label spaces and bigger training datasets. We propose a novel method that leverages the rich semantics available in recent vision and language models to localize and classify objects in unlabeled images. We demonstrate the value of the generated pseudo labels in two specific tasks, open-vocabulary detection and semi-supervised object detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T21:47:15Z)
• Analyzing the Limits of Self-Supervision in Handling Bias in Language [52.26068057260399]
  We evaluate how well language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T05:36:08Z)
• A Comparative Study of Lexical Substitution Approaches based on Neural Language Models [117.96628873753123]
  We present a large-scale comparative study of popular neural language and masked language models. We show that already competitive results achieved by SOTA LMs/MLMs can be further improved if information about the target word is injected properly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-29T18:43:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.