Oracle Performance for Visual Captioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task of associating images and videos with a natural language description has attracted a great amount of attention recently. Rapid progress has been made in terms of both developing novel algorithms and releasing new datasets. Indeed, the state-of-the-art results on some of the standard datasets have been pushed into the regime where it has become more and more difficult to make significant improvements. Instead of proposing new models, this work investigates the possibility of empirically establishing performance upper bounds on various visual captioning datasets without extra data labelling effort or human evaluation. In particular, it is assumed that visual captioning is decomposed into two steps: from visual inputs to visual concepts, and from visual concepts to natural language descriptions. One would be able to obtain an upper bound when assuming the first step is perfect and only requiring training a conditional language model for the second step. We demonstrate the construction of such bounds on MS-COCO, YouTube2Text and LSMDC (a combination of M-VAD and MPII-MD). Surprisingly, despite of the imperfect process we used for visual concept extraction in the first step and the simplicity of the language model for the second step, we show that current state-of-the-art models fall short when being compared with the learned upper bounds. Furthermore, with such a bound, we quantify several important factors concerning image and video captioning: the number of visual concepts captured by different models, the trade-off between the amount of visual elements captured and their accuracy, and the intrinsic difficulty and blessing of different datasets.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".