Natural language questions are inherently compositional, and many are most easily answered by reasoning about their decomposition into modular sub-problems. For example, to answer "is there an equal number of balls and boxes?" we can look for balls, look for boxes, count them, and compare the results. The recently proposed Neural Module Network (NMN) architecture implements this approach to question answering by parsing questions into linguistic substructures and assembling question-specific deep networks from smaller modules that each solve one subtask. However, existing NMN implementations rely on brittle off-the-shelf parsers, and are restricted to the module configurations proposed by these parsers rather than learning them from data. In this paper, we propose End-to-End Module Networks (N2NMNs), which learn to reason by directly predicting instance-specific network layouts without the aid of a parser. Our model learns to generate network structures (by imitating expert demonstrations) while simultaneously learning network parameters (using the downstream task loss). Experimental results on the new CLEVR dataset targeted at compositional question answering show that N2NMNs achieve an error reduction of nearly 50 relative to state-of-the-art attentional approaches, while discovering interpretable network architectures specialized for each question.
It has been less clear, however, that these improvements correspond to an improvement in the abilities of models. Recent work has found that it is possible to do quite well on many visual QA problems by simply memorizing statistics about question answer pairs @cite_18 (suggesting that limited visual reasoning is involved), and that models with bag-of-words text representations perform competitively against more sophisticated approaches @cite_7 (suggesting that limited linguistic compositionality is involved). To address this concern, newer visual question answering datasets have focused on exploring specific phenomena in compositionality and generalization; examples include the dataset @cite_9 , the VQAv2 dataset @cite_18 , and the dataset @cite_24 . The last of these appears to present the greatest challenges to standard VQA approaches and the hardest reasoning problems in general.
@cite_24 @cite_9 @cite_18 @cite_7
2787553714 2952228917 2790777763 2522258376
Visual Question Answering (VQA) has attracted attention from both computer vision and natural language processing communities. Most existing approaches adopt the pipeline of representing an image via pre-trained CNNs, and then using the uninterpretable CNN features in conjunction with the question to predict the answer. Although such end-to-end models might report promising performance, they rarely provide any insight, apart from the answer, into the VQA process. In this work, we propose to break up the end-to-end VQA into two steps: explaining and reasoning, in an attempt towards a more explainable VQA by shedding light on the intermediate results between these two steps. To that end, we first extract attributes and generate descriptions as explanations for an image using pre-trained attribute detectors and image captioning models, respectively. Next, a reasoning module utilizes these explanations in place of the image to infer an answer to the question. The advantages of such a breakdown include: (1) the attributes and captions can reflect what the system extracts from the image, thus can provide some explanations for the predicted answer; (2) these intermediate results can help us identify the inabilities of both the image understanding part and the answer inference part when the predicted answer is wrong. We conduct extensive experiments on a popular VQA dataset and dissect all results according to several measurements of the explanation quality. Our system achieves comparable performance with the state-of-the-art, yet with added benefits of explainability and the inherent ability to further improve with higher quality explanations. Problems at the intersection of vision and language are of significant importance both as challenging research questions and for the rich set of applications they enable. However, inherent structure in our world and bias in our language tend to be a simpler signal for learning than visual modalities, resulting in models that ignore visual information, leading to an inflated sense of their capability. We propose to counter these language priors for the task of Visual Question Answering (VQA) and make vision (the V in VQA) matter! Specifically, we balance the popular VQA dataset by collecting complementary images such that every question in our balanced dataset is associated with not just a single image, but rather a pair of similar images that result in two different answers to the question. Our dataset is by construction more balanced than the original VQA dataset and has approximately twice the number of image-question pairs. Our complete balanced dataset is publicly available at this http URL as part of the 2nd iteration of the Visual Question Answering Dataset and Challenge (VQA v2.0). We further benchmark a number of state-of-art VQA models on our balanced dataset. All models perform significantly worse on our balanced dataset, suggesting that these models have indeed learned to exploit language priors. This finding provides the first concrete empirical evidence for what seems to be a qualitative sense among practitioners. Finally, our data collection protocol for identifying complementary images enables us to develop a novel interpretable model, which in addition to providing an answer to the given (image, question) pair, also provides a counter-example based explanation. Specifically, it identifies an image that is similar to the original image, but it believes has a different answer to the same question. This can help in building trust for machines among their users. Most existing works in visual question answering (VQA) are dedicated to improving the accuracy of predicted answers, while disregarding the explanations. We argue that the explanation for an answer is of the same or even more importance compared with the answer itself, since it makes the question and answering process more understandable and traceable. To this end, we propose a new task of VQA-E (VQA with Explanation), where the computational models are required to generate an explanation with the predicted answer. We first construct a new dataset, and then frame the VQA-E problem in a multi-task learning architecture. Our VQA-E dataset is automatically derived from the VQA v2 dataset by intelligently exploiting the available captions. We have conducted a user study to validate the quality of explanations synthesized by our method. We quantitatively show that the additional supervision from explanations can not only produce insightful textual sentences to justify the answers, but also improve the performance of answer prediction. Our model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by a clear margin on the VQA v2 dataset. This paper proposes to improve visual question answering (VQA) with structured representations of both scene contents and questions. A key challenge in VQA is to require joint reasoning over the visual and text domains. The predominant CNN LSTM-based approach to VQA is limited by monolithic vector representations that largely ignore structure in the scene and in the form of the question. CNN feature vectors cannot effectively capture situations as simple as multiple object instances, and LSTMs process questions as series of words, which does not reflect the true complexity of language structure. We instead propose to build graphs over the scene objects and over the question words, and we describe a deep neural network that exploits the structure in these representations. This shows significant benefit over the sequential processing of LSTMs. The overall efficacy of our approach is demonstrated by significant improvements over the state-of-the-art, from 71.2 to 74.4 in accuracy on the "abstract scenes" multiple-choice benchmark, and from 34.7 to 39.1 in accuracy over pairs of "balanced" scenes, i.e. images with fine-grained differences and opposite yes no answers to a same question.