mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Measuring Faithful and Plausible Visual Grounding in VQA

arXiv 2305.15015 ↗First posted 24 May 2023cs.CVcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Metrics for Visual Grounding (VG) in Visual Question Answering (VQA) systems primarily aim to measure a system's reliance on relevant parts of the image when inferring an answer to the given question. Lack of VG has been a common problem among state-of-the-art VQA systems and can manifest in over-reliance on irrelevant image parts or a disregard for the visual modality entirely. Although inference capabilities of VQA models are often illustrated by a few qualitative illustrations, most systems are not quantitatively assessed for their VG properties. We believe, an easily calculated criterion for meaningfully measuring a system's VG can help remedy this shortcoming, as well as add another valuable dimension to model evaluations and analysis. To this end, we propose a new VG metric that captures if a model a) identifies question-relevant objects in the scene, and b) actually relies on the information contained in the relevant objects when producing its answer, i.e., if its visual grounding is both "faithful" and "plausible". Our metric, called "Faithful and Plausible Visual Grounding" (FPVG), is straightforward to determine for most VQA model designs. We give a detailed description of FPVG and evaluate several reference systems spanning various VQA architectures. Code to support the metric calculations on the GQA data set is available on GitHub.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2023.

Builds on

41 of 56 references.

References · 41

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  3. 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,617
  4. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  5. 2016Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detectioncited by 5,021
  6. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  7. 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,498
  8. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,489
  9. 2019LXMERT: Learning Cross-Modality Encoder Representations from Transformerscited by 1,548
  10. 2017Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention for Image Captioning and Visual Question Answeringcited by 1,310
  11. 2020Oscar: Object-Semantics Aligned Pre-training for Vision-Language Taskscited by 1,213
  12. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
29 more
  1. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  2. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  3. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  4. 2019The Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner: Interpreting Scenes, Words, and Sentences From Natural Supervisioncited by 369
  5. 2019Deep Modular Co-Attention Networks for Visual Question Answeringcited by 338
  6. 2017Don't Just Assume; Look and Answer: Overcoming Priors for Visual Question Answeringcited by 337
  7. 2018Neural-Symbolic VQA: Disentangling Reasoning from Vision and Language Understandingcited by 304
  8. 2017Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanationscited by 293
  9. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  10. 2018Compositional Attention Networks for Machine Reasoningcited by 183
  11. 2018Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidencecited by 179
  12. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
  13. 2019Taking a HINT: Leveraging Explanations to Make Vision and Language Models More Groundedcited by 127
  14. 2016Analyzing the Behavior of Visual Question Answering Modelscited by 119
  15. 2016Human Attention in Visual Question Answering: Do Humans and Deep Networks Look at the Same Regions?cited by 111
  16. 2019Towards Causal VQA: Revealing and Reducing Spurious Correlations by Invariant and Covariant Semantic Editingcited by 108
  17. 2020Roses Are Red, Violets Are Blue... but Should Vqa Expect Them To?cited by 69
  18. 2019Self-Critical Reasoning for Robust Visual Question Answeringcited by 61
  19. 2017A causal framework for explaining the predictions of black-box sequence-to-sequence modelscited by 58
  20. 2019Meta Module Network for Compositional Visual Reasoningcited by 39
  21. 2022SwapMix: Diagnosing and Regularizing the Over-Reliance on Visual Context in Visual Question Answeringcited by 38
  22. 2019Sunny and Dark Outside?! Improving Answer Consistency in VQA through Entailed Question Generationcited by 36
  23. 2020Neuro-Symbolic Visual Reasoning: Disentangling "Visual" from "Reasoning"cited by 35
  24. 2021Greedy Gradient Ensemble for Robust Visual Question Answeringcited by 34
  25. 2021Found a Reason for me? Weakly-supervised Grounded Visual Question Answering using Capsulescited by 22
  26. 2020Visual Grounding Methods for VQA are Working for the Wrong Reasons!cited by 18
  27. 2020Robust Explanations for Visual Question Answeringcited by 14
  28. 2022VisFIS: Visual Feature Importance Supervision with Right-for-the-Right-Reason Objectivescited by 12
  29. 2022Visually Grounded VQA by Lattice-based Retrievalcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

8 papers.