Contrastive Learning with Expectation-Maximization for Weakly Supervised Phrase Grounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weakly supervised phrase grounding aims to learn an alignment between phrases in a caption and objects in a corresponding image using only caption-image annotations, i.e., without phrase-object annotations.Previous methods typically use a caption-image contrastive loss to indirectly supervise the alignment between phrases and objects, which hinders the maximum use of the intrinsic structure of the multimodal data and leads to unsatisfactory performance.In this work, we directly use the phrase-object contrastive loss in the condition that no positive annotation is available in the first place.Specifically, we propose a novel contrastive learning framework based on the expectation-maximization algorithm that adaptively refines the target prediction.Experiments on two widely used benchmarks, Flickr30K Entities and RefCOCO+, demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework.We obtain 63.05% top-1 accuracy on Flickr30K Entities and 59.51%/43.46% on RefCOCO+ TestA/TestB, outperforming the previous methods by a large margin, even surpassing a previous SoTA that uses a pre-trained visionlanguage model.Furthermore, we deliver a theoretical analysis of the effectiveness of our method from the perspective of the maximum likelihood estimate with latent variables.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".