Large Visual Language Models (LVLMs) struggle with hallucinations in visual instruction following task(s). These issues hinder their trustworthiness and real-world applicability. We propose Pelican – a novel framework designed to detect and mitigate hallucinations through claim verification. Pelican first decomposes the visual claim into a chain of sub-claims based on first-order predicates. These sub-claims consists of (predicate, question) pairs and can be conceptualized as nodes of a computational graph. We then use use Program-of-Thought prompting to generate Python code for answering these questions through flexible composition of external tools. Pelican improves over prior work by introducing (1) intermediate variables for precise grounding of object instances, and (2) shared computation for answering the sub-question to enable adaptive corrections and inconsistency identification. We finally use reasoning abilities of LLM to verify the correctness of the the claim by considering the consistency and confidence of the (question, answer) pairs from each sub-claim. Our experiments demonstrate consistent performance improvements over various baseline LVLMs and existing hallucination mitigation approaches across several benchmarks.

Paraphrasing of offensive content is a better alternative to content removal and helps improve civility in a communication environment. Supervised paraphrasers; however, rely heavily on large quantities of labelled data to help preserve meaning and intent. They also often retain a large portion of the offensiveness of the original content, which raises questions on their overall usability. In this paper we aim to assist practitioners in developing usable paraphrasers by exploring In-Context Learning (ICL) with large language models (LLMs), i.e., using a limited number of input-label demonstration pairs to guide the model in generating desired outputs for specific queries. Our study focuses on key factors such as - number and order of demonstrations, exclusion of prompt instruction, and reduction in measured toxicity. We perform principled evaluation on three datasets, including our proposed Context-Aware Polite Paraphrase (CAPP) dataset, comprising of dialogue-style rude utterances, polite paraphrases, and additional dialogue context. We evaluate our approach using four closed source and one open source LLM. Our results reveal that ICL is comparable to supervised methods in generation quality, while being qualitatively better by 25% on human evaluation and attaining lower toxicity by 76%. Also, ICL-based paraphrasers only show a slight reduction in performance even with just 10% training data.

We propose a novel VQA dataset, BloomVQA, to facilitate comprehensive evaluation of large vision-language models on comprehension tasks. Unlike current benchmarks that often focus on fact-based memorization and simple reasoning tasks without theoretical grounding, we collect multiple-choice samples based on picture stories that reflect different levels of comprehension, as laid out in Bloom’s Taxonomy, a classic framework for learning assessment widely adopted in education research. Our data maps to a novel hierarchical graph representation which enables automatic data augmentation and novel measures characterizing model consistency. We perform graded evaluation and reliability analysis on recent multi-modal models. In comparison to low-level tasks, we observe decreased performance on tasks requiring advanced comprehension and cognitive skills with up to 38.0% drop in VQA accuracy. In comparison to earlier models, GPT-4V demonstrates improved accuracy over all comprehension levels and also shows a tendency of bypassing visual inputs especially for higher-level tasks. Current models also show consistency patterns misaligned with human comprehension in various scenarios, demonstrating the need for improvement based on theoretically-grounded criteria. The dataset can be accessed at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ygong/BloomVQA.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can parse natural queries about the visual content and generate human-like outputs. In this work, we explore the ability of these models to demonstrate human-like reasoning based on the perceived information. To address a crucial concern regarding the extent to which their reasoning capabilities are fully consistent and grounded, we also measure the reasoning consistency of these models. We achieve this by proposing a chain-of-thought (CoT) based consistency measure. However, such an evaluation requires a benchmark that encompasses both high-level inference and detailed reasoning chains, which is costly. We tackle this challenge by proposing an LLM-Human-in-the-Loop pipeline, which notably reduces cost while simultaneously ensuring the generation of a high-quality dataset. Based on this pipeline and the existing coarse-grained annotated dataset, we build the CURE benchmark to measure both the zero-shot reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs, and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency, indicating that substantial efforts are required to enable VLMs to perform visual reasoning as systematically and consistently as humans. As an early step, we propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs. The first stage involves employing supervised fine-tuning of VLMs using step-by-step reasoning samples automatically generated by LLMs. In the second stage, we further augment the training process by incorporating feedback provided by LLMs to produce reasoning chains that are highly consistent and grounded. We empirically highlight the effectiveness of our framework in both reasoning performance and consistency.

Content moderation is the process of flagging content based on pre-defined platform rules. There has been a growing need for AI moderators to safeguard users as well as protect the mental health of human moderators from traumatic content. While prior works have focused on identifying hateful/offensive language, they are not adequate for meeting the challenges of content moderation since 1) moderation decisions are based on violation of rules, which subsumes detection of offensive speech, and 2) such rules often differ across communities which entails an adaptive solution. We propose to study the challenges of content moderation by introducing a multilingual dataset of 1.8 Million Reddit comments spanning 56 subreddits in English, German, Spanish and French1. We perform extensive experimental analysis to highlight the underlying challenges and suggest related research problems such as cross-lingual transfer, learning under label noise (human biases), transfer of moderation models, and predicting the violated rule. Our dataset and analysis can help better prepare for the challenges and opportunities of auto moderation.

Current pre-trained language models have lots of knowledge, but a more limited ability to use that knowledge. Bloom’s Taxonomy helps educators teach children how to use knowledge by categorizing comprehension skills, so we use it to analyze and improve the comprehension skills of large pre-trained language models. Our experiments focus on zero-shot question answering, using the taxonomy to provide proximal context that helps the model answer questions by being relevant to those questions. We show targeting context in this manner improves performance across 4 popular common sense question answer datasets.

Computing author intent from multimodal data like Instagram posts requires modeling a complex relationship between text and image. For example, a caption might evoke an ironic contrast with the image, so neither caption nor image is a mere transcript of the other. Instead they combine—via what has been called meaning multiplication (Bateman et al.)- to create a new meaning that has a more complex relation to the literal meanings of text and image. Here we introduce a multimodal dataset of 1299 Instagram posts labeled for three orthogonal taxonomies: the authorial intent behind the image-caption pair, the contextual relationship between the literal meanings of the image and caption, and the semiotic relationship between the signified meanings of the image and caption. We build a baseline deep multimodal classifier to validate the taxonomy, showing that employing both text and image improves intent detection by 9.6 compared to using only the image modality, demonstrating the commonality of non-intersective meaning multiplication. The gain with multimodality is greatest when the image and caption diverge semiotically. Our dataset offers a new resource for the study of the rich meanings that result from pairing text and image.

While models for Visual Question Answering (VQA) have steadily improved over the years, interacting with one quickly reveals that these models lack consistency. For instance, if a model answers “red” to “What color is the balloon?”, it might answer “no” if asked, “Is the balloon red?”. These responses violate simple notions of entailment and raise questions about how effectively VQA models ground language. In this work, we introduce a dataset, ConVQA, and metrics that enable quantitative evaluation of consistency in VQA. For a given observable fact in an image (e.g. the balloon’s color), we generate a set of logically consistent question-answer (QA) pairs (e.g. Is the balloon red?) and also collect a human-annotated set of common-sense based consistent QA pairs (e.g. Is the balloon the same color as tomato sauce?). Further, we propose a consistency-improving data augmentation module, a Consistency Teacher Module (CTM). CTM automatically generates entailed (or similar-intent) questions for a source QA pair and fine-tunes the VQA model if the VQA’s answer to the entailed question is consistent with the source QA pair. We demonstrate that our CTM-based training improves the consistency of VQA models on the Con-VQA datasets and is a strong baseline for further research.