mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Quality-agnostic Image Captioning to Safely Assist People with Vision Impairment

arXiv 2304.14623 ↗First posted 28 Apr 2023cs.CVcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated image captioning has the potential to be a useful tool for people with vision impairments. Images taken by this user group are often noisy, which leads to incorrect and even unsafe model predictions. In this paper, we propose a quality-agnostic framework to improve the performance and robustness of image captioning models for visually impaired people. We address this problem from three angles: data, model, and evaluation. First, we show how data augmentation techniques for generating synthetic noise can address data sparsity in this domain. Second, we enhance the robustness of the model by expanding a state-of-the-art model to a dual network architecture, using the augmented data and leveraging different consistency losses. Our results demonstrate increased performance, e.g. an absolute improvement of 2.15 on CIDEr, compared to state-of-the-art image captioning networks, as well as increased robustness to noise with up to 3 points improvement on CIDEr in more noisy settings. Finally, we evaluate the prediction reliability using confidence calibration on images with different difficulty/noise levels, showing that our models perform more reliably in safety-critical situations. The improved model is part of an assisted living application, which we develop in partnership with the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2023.

Builds on

24 of 45 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  3. 2020FixMatch: Simplifying Semi-Supervised Learning with Consistency and Confidencecited by 2,080
  4. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
  5. 2016SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluationcited by 820
  6. 2018Rethinking ImageNet Pre-trainingcited by 376
  7. 2020Rethinking Pre-training and Self-trainingcited by 352
  8. 2019On Mixup Training: Improved Calibration and Predictive Uncertainty for Deep Neural Networkscited by 304
  9. 2019Attention on Attention for Image Captioningcited by 289
  10. 2021Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation with Directional Context-aware Consistencycited by 112
  11. 2020Captioning Images Taken by People Who Are Blindcited by 108
  12. 2021Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Toolingcited by 77
12 more
  1. 2018The Pros and Cons: Rank-aware Temporal Attention for Skill Determination in Long Videoscited by 68
  2. 2021SimPLE: Similar Pseudo Label Exploitation for Semi-Supervised Classificationcited by 68
  3. 2020On the Inference Calibration of Neural Machine Translationcited by 61
  4. 2022Grounding Answers for Visual Questions Asked by Visually Impaired Peoplecited by 47
  5. 2021Multi-Target Domain Adaptation with Collaborative Consistency Learningcited by 43
  6. 2021Adaptive Consistency Regularization for Semi-Supervised Transfer Learningcited by 37
  7. 2019Why Does a Visual Question Have Different Answers?cited by 34
  8. 2020Assessing Image Quality Issues for Real-World Problemscited by 28
  9. 2020AlphaMatch: Improving Consistency for Semi-supervised Learning with Alpha-divergencecited by 22
  10. 2021Image Scene Graph Generation (SGG) Benchmarkcited by 15
  11. 2022VizWiz-FewShot: Locating Objects in Images Taken by People With Visual Impairmentscited by 11
  12. 2016Natural Language Generation enhances human decision-making with uncertain informationcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

8 papers.