mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Dealing with Semantic Underspecification in Multimodal NLP

arXiv 2306.05240 ↗First posted 8 Jun 2023cs.CL cs.AI cs.CVcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Intelligent systems that aim at mastering language as humans do must deal with its semantic underspecification, namely, the possibility for a linguistic signal to convey only part of the information needed for communication to succeed. Consider the usages of the pronoun they, which can leave the gender and number of its referent(s) underspecified. Semantic underspecification is not a bug but a crucial language feature that boosts its storage and processing efficiency. Indeed, human speakers can quickly and effortlessly integrate semantically-underspecified linguistic signals with a wide range of non-linguistic information, e.g., the multimodal context, social or cultural conventions, and shared knowledge. Standard NLP models have, in principle, no or limited access to such extra information, while multimodal systems grounding language into other modalities, such as vision, are naturally equipped to account for this phenomenon. However, we show that they struggle with it, which could negatively affect their performance and lead to harmful consequences when used for applications. In this position paper, we argue that our community should be aware of semantic underspecification if it aims to develop language technology that can successfully interact with human users. We discuss some applications where mastering it is crucial and outline a few directions toward achieving this goal.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 55 of its 94 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2023.

Builds on

55 of 94 references.

References · 55

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  4. 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,639
  5. 2016Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotationscited by 2,656
  6. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,506
  7. 2019ViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Taskscited by 2,222
  8. 2019LXMERT: Learning Cross-Modality Encoder Representations from Transformerscited by 1,553
  9. 2016CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoningcited by 1,457
  10. 2015Flickr30k Entities: Collecting Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Image-to-Sentence Modelscited by 1,362
  11. 2019VisualBERT: A Simple and Performant Baseline for Vision and Languagecited by 1,296
  12. 2021ViLT: Vision-and-Language Transformer Without Convolution or Region Supervisioncited by 1,230
38 more
  1. 2019VL-BERT: Pre-training of Generic Visual-Linguistic Representationscited by 954
  2. 2018VizWiz Grand Challenge: Answering Visual Questions from Blind Peoplecited by 858
  3. 2022Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionalitycited by 529
  4. 2016Visual Dialogcited by 377
  5. 2020Large-Scale Adversarial Training for Vision-and-Language Representation Learningcited by 327
  6. 2020Experience Grounds Languagecited by 242
  7. 2021UniT: Multimodal Multitask Learning with a Unified Transformercited by 195
  8. 2022mPLUG: Effective and Efficient Vision-Language Learning by Cross-modal Skip-connectionscited by 187
  9. 2021VALSE: A Task-Independent Benchmark for Vision and Language Models Centered on Linguistic Phenomenacited by 135
  10. 2022Language Models as Agent Modelscited by 132
  11. 2023We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguitycited by 126
  12. 2016GuessWhat?! Visual object discovery through multi-modal dialoguecited by 113
  13. 2020Captioning Images Taken by People Who Are Blindcited by 110
  14. 2017FOIL it! Find One mismatch between Image and Language captioncited by 95
  15. 2022A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language modelscited by 70
  16. 2016Reasoning About Pragmatics with Neural Listeners and Speakerscited by 68
  17. 2019Good News, Everyone! Context driven entity-aware captioning for news imagescited by 66
  18. 2022The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMscited by 58
  19. 2017Colors in Context: A Pragmatic Neural Model for Grounded Language Understandingcited by 57
  20. 2018Dialogue Learning with Human Teaching and Feedback in End-to-End Trainable Task-Oriented Dialogue Systemscited by 53
  21. 2022Grounding Answers for Visual Questions Asked by Visually Impaired Peoplecited by 47
  22. 2019The PhotoBook Dataset: Building Common Ground through Visually-Grounded Dialoguecited by 46
  23. 2022Why is Winoground Hard? Investigating Failures in Visuolinguistic Compositionalitycited by 44
  24. 2017Context-aware Captions from Context-agnostic Supervisioncited by 43
  25. 2018Pragmatically Informative Image Captioning with Character-Level Inferencecited by 42
  26. 2021Transparent Human Evaluation for Image Captioningcited by 40
  27. 2022The Abduction of Sherlock Holmes: A Dataset for Visual Abductive Reasoningcited by 38
  28. 2019Integrating Text and Image: Determining Multimodal Document Intent in Instagram Postscited by 37
  29. 2016Automatic Description Generation from Images: A Survey of Models, Datasets, and Evaluation Measurescited by 36
  30. 2019A Natural Language Corpus of Common Grounding under Continuous and Partially-Observable Contextcited by 35
  31. 2019Why Does a Visual Question Have Different Answers?cited by 34
  32. 2022Underspecification in Scene Description-to-Depiction Taskscited by 30
  33. 2019Continual adaptation for efficient machine communicationcited by 28
  34. 2020Clue: Cross-modal Coherence Modeling for Caption Generationcited by 24
  35. 2020Refer, Reuse, Reduce: Generating Subsequent References in Visual and Conversational Contextscited by 22
  36. 2019MeetUp! A Corpus of Joint Activity Dialogues in a Visual Environmentcited by 19
  37. 2021Continual Learning for Grounded Instruction Generation by Observing Human Following Behaviorcited by 19
  38. 2022Context Matters for Image Descriptions for Accessibility: Challenges for Referenceless Evaluation Metricscited by 18

50 most cited of 55 All 55 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

9 papers.