Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

On Guiding Visual Attention with Language Specification

About

While real world challenges typically define visual categories with language words or phrases, most visual classification methods define categories with numerical indices. However, the language specification of the classes provides an especially useful prior for biased and noisy datasets, where it can help disambiguate what features are task-relevant. Recently, large-scale multimodal models have been shown to recognize a wide variety of high-level concepts from a language specification even without additional image training data, but they are often unable to distinguish classes for more fine-grained tasks. CNNs, in contrast, can extract subtle image features that are required for fine-grained discrimination, but will overfit to any bias or noise in datasets. Our insight is to use high-level language specification as advice for constraining the classification evidence to task-relevant features, instead of distractors. To do this, we ground task-relevant words or phrases with attention maps from a pretrained large-scale model. We then use this grounding to supervise a classifier's spatial attention away from distracting context. We show that supervising spatial attention in this way improves performance on classification tasks with biased and noisy data, including about 3-15% worst-group accuracy improvements and 41-45% relative improvements on fairness metrics.

Suzanne Petryk, Lisa Dunlap, Keyan Nasseri, Joseph Gonzalez, Trevor Darrell, Anna Rohrbach• 2022

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Image ClassificationMetaShift (test)
Average Accuracy76.3
27
Image ClassificationSpawrious
O2O Easy Accuracy93.5
22
Image ClassificationWaterbirds 100%
Accuracy Variance across Groups516.5
22
Image ClassificationWaterbirds 95%
Accuracy Variance (Group)126.7
22
ClassificationMetaShift
Average Worst Group Accuracy66
20
Image ClassificationSpawrious (test)
O2O Accuracy (Easy)89.1
15
Group RobustnessWaterbirds 95%
Worst Group Accuracy75.4
11
Group RobustnessWaterbirds 100%
Worst Group Accuracy55
11
Image ClassificationWaterbirds 95% correlation (test)
Worst-group Accuracy75.4
11
Image ClassificationWaterbirds 100% correlation (test)
Worst-group Accuracy55
11
Showing 10 of 17 rows

Other info

Follow for update