mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Adversarial Testing for Visual Grounding via Image-Aware Property Reduction

arXiv 2403.01118 ↗First posted 2 Mar 2024cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Due to the advantages of fusing information from various modalities, multimodal learning is gaining increasing attention. Being a fundamental task of multimodal learning, Visual Grounding (VG), aims to locate objects in images through natural language expressions. Ensuring the quality of VG models presents significant challenges due to the complex nature of the task. In the black box scenario, existing adversarial testing techniques often fail to fully exploit the potential of both modalities of information. They typically apply perturbations based solely on either the image or text information, disregarding the crucial correlation between the two modalities, which would lead to failures in test oracles or an inability to effectively challenge VG models. To this end, we propose PEELING, a text perturbation approach via image-aware property reduction for adversarial testing of the VG model. The core idea is to reduce the property-related information in the original expression meanwhile ensuring the reduced expression can still uniquely describe the original object in the image. To achieve this, PEELING first conducts the object and properties extraction and recombination to generate candidate property reduction expressions. It then selects the satisfied expressions that accurately describe the original object while ensuring no other objects in the image fulfill the expression, through querying the image with a visual understanding technique. We evaluate PEELING on the state-of-the-art VG model, i.e. OFA-VG, involving three commonly used datasets. Results show that the adversarial tests generated by PEELING achieves 21.4% in MultiModal Impact score (MMI), and outperforms state-of-the-art baselines for images and texts by 8.2%--15.1%.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Mar 2024.

Builds on

41 of 60 references.

References · 41

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  4. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  5. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
  6. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,489
  7. 2019ViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Taskscited by 2,219
  8. 2019LXMERT: Learning Cross-Modality Encoder Representations from Transformerscited by 1,548
  9. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,430
  10. 2016Modeling Context in Referring Expressionscited by 1,054
  11. 2017Vision-and-Language Navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environmentscited by 1,013
  12. 2015Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptionscited by 897
29 more
  1. 2015The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settingscited by 784
  2. 2022OFA: Unifying Architectures, Tasks, and Modalities Through a Simple Sequence-to-Sequence Learning Frameworkcited by 742
  3. 2019Multimodal Transformer for Unaligned Multimodal Language Sequencescited by 637
  4. 2016Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognitioncited by 548
  5. 2017Embodied Question Answeringcited by 335
  6. 2019REVERIE: Remote Embodied Visual Referring Expression in Real Indoor Environmentscited by 330
  7. 2016Modeling Context Between Objects for Referring Expression Understandingcited by 250
  8. 2021Understanding Robustness of Transformers for Image Classificationcited by 250
  9. 2021Vision Transformers are Robust Learnerscited by 208
  10. 2023Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERTcited by 155
  11. 2021InstanceRefer: Cooperative Holistic Understanding for Visual Grounding on Point Clouds through Instance Multi-level Contextual Referringcited by 140
  12. 2019Span-based Joint Entity and Relation Extraction with Transformer Pre-trainingcited by 132
  13. 2023Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulnesscited by 130
  14. 2017Deep Text Classification Can be Fooledcited by 105
  15. 2016Crafting Adversarial Input Sequences for Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 102
  16. 2019A General Framework for Information Extraction using Dynamic Span Graphscited by 93
  17. 2019Grounding Human-to-Vehicle Advice for Self-driving Vehiclescited by 71
  18. 2022Improving Visual Grounding with Visual-Linguistic Verification and Iterative Reasoningcited by 69
  19. 2019Automatic Testing and Improvement of Machine Translationcited by 35
  20. 2020Words aren't enough, their order matters: On the Robustness of Grounding Visual Referring Expressionscited by 33
  21. 2021Refer-it-in-RGBD: A Bottom-up Approach for 3D Visual Grounding in RGBD Imagescited by 33
  22. 2019Structure-Invariant Testing for Machine Translationcited by 27
  23. 2022Improving Visual Grounding by Encouraging Consistent Gradient-based Explanationscited by 24
  24. 2023Advancing Visual Grounding with Scene Knowledge: Benchmark and Methodcited by 17
  25. 2019White-to-Black: Efficient Distillation of Black-Box Adversarial Attackscited by 14
  26. 2022On The Robustness of Offensive Language Classifierscited by 8
  27. 2020Giving Commands to a Self-driving Car: A Multimodal Reasoner for Visual Groundingcited by 5
  28. 2022Grounding Commands for Autonomous Vehicles via Layer Fusion with Region-specific Dynamic Layer Attentioncited by 4
  29. 2022Putting Them under Microscope: A Fine-Grained Approach for Detecting Redundant Test Cases in Natural Languagecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.