Comparing Visual Reasoning in Humans and AI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent advances in natural language processing and computer vision have led to AI models that interpret simple scenes at human levels. Yet, we do not have a complete understanding of how humans and AI models differ in their interpretation of more complex scenes. We created a dataset of complex scenes that contained human behaviors and social interactions. AI and humans had to describe the scenes with a sentence. We used a quantitative metric of similarity between scene descriptions of the AI/human and ground truth of five other human descriptions of each scene. Results show that the machine/human agreement scene descriptions are much lower than human/human agreement for our complex scenes. Using an experimental manipulation that occludes different spatial regions of the scenes, we assessed how machines and humans vary in utilizing regions of images to understand the scenes. Together, our results are a first step toward understanding how machines fall short of human visual reasoning with complex scenes depicting human behaviors.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2021.
Builds on
10 of 18 references.
References · 10
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,506
- 2019ViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Taskscited by 2,222
- 2020Oscar: Object-Semantics Aligned Pre-training for Vision-Language Taskscited by 1,214
- 2018From Recognition to Cognition: Visual Commonsense Reasoningcited by 556
- 2016Human Attention in Visual Question Answering: Do Humans and Deep Networks Look at the Same Regions?cited by 111
- 2019Counterfactual Vision-and-Language Navigation via Adversarial Path Samplingcited by 22
- 2019Assessment of Faster R-CNN in Man-Machine collaborative searchcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.