What Are You Talking About? Text-to-Image Coreference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we exploit natural sentential descriptions of RGB-D scenes in order to improve 3D semantic parsing. Importantly, in doing so, we reason about which particular object each noun/pronoun is referring to in the image. This allows us to utilize visual information in order to disambiguate the so-called coreference resolution problem that arises in text. Towards this goal, we propose a structure prediction model that exploits potentials computed from text and RGB-D imagery to reason about the class of the 3D objects, the scene type, as well as to align the nouns/pronouns with the referred visual objects. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on the challenging NYU-RGBD v2 dataset, which we enrich with natural lingual descriptions. We show that our approach significantly improves 3D detection and scene classification accuracy, and is able to reliably estimate the text-to-image alignment. Furthermore, by using textual and visual information, we are also able to successfully deal with coreference in text, improving upon the state-of-the-art Stanford coreference system [15].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".