Current visual question answering (VQA) models tend to be trained and evaluated on image-question pairs in isolation. However, the questions people ask are dependent on their informational needs and prior knowledge about the image content. To evaluate how situating images within naturalistic contexts shapes visual questions, we introduce CommVQA, a VQA dataset consisting of images, image descriptions, real-world communicative scenarios where the image might appear (e.g., a travel website), and follow-up questions and answers conditioned on the scenario and description. CommVQA, which contains 1000 images and 8,949 question-answer pairs, poses a challenge for current models. Error analyses and a human-subjects study suggest that generated answers still contain high rates of hallucinations, fail to fittingly address unanswerable questions, and don’t suitably reflect contextual information.

Although CLIPScore is a powerful generic metric that captures the similarity between a text and an image, it fails to distinguish between a caption that is meant to complement the information in an image and a description that is meant to replace an image entirely, e.g., for accessibility. We address this shortcoming by updating the CLIP model with the Concadia dataset to assign higher scores to descriptions than captions using parameter efficient fine-tuning and a loss objective derived from work on causal interpretability. This model correlates with the judgements of blind and low-vision people while preserving transfer capabilities and has interpretable structure that sheds light on the caption–description distinction.

Image description generation models are sophisticated Vision-Language Models which promise to make visual content, such as images, non-visually accessible through linguistic descriptions. While these systems can benefit all, their primary motivation tends to lie in allowing blind and low-vision (BLV) users access to increasingly visual (online) discourse. Well-defined evaluation methods are crucial for steering model development into socially useful directions. In this work, we show that the most popular evaluation metrics (reference-based metrics) are biased against BLV users and therefore potentially stifle useful model development. Reference-based metrics assign quality scores based on the similarity to human-generated ground-truth descriptions and are widely accepted as neutrally representing the needs of all users. However, we find that these metrics are more strongly correlated with sighted participant ratings than BLV ratings, and we explore factors which appear to mediate this finding: description length, the image’s context of appearance, and the number of reference descriptions available. These findings suggest that there is a need for developing evaluation methods that are established based on specific downstream user groups, and they highlight the importance of reflecting on emerging biases against minorities in the development of general-purpose automatic metrics.

Distillation efforts have led to language models that are more compact and efficient without serious drops in performance. The standard approach to distillation trains a student model against two objectives: a task-specific objective (e.g., language modeling) and an imitation objective that encourages the hidden states of the student model to be similar to those of the larger teacher model. In this paper, we show that it is beneficial to augment distillation with a third objective that encourages the student to imitate the causal dynamics of the teacher through a distillation interchange intervention training objective (DIITO). DIITO pushes the student model to become a causal abstraction of the teacher model – a faithful model with simpler causal structure. DIITO is fully differentiable, easily implemented, and combines flexibly with other objectives. Compared against standard distillation with the same setting, DIITO results in lower perplexity on the WikiText-103M corpus (masked language modeling) and marked improvements on the GLUE benchmark (natural language understanding), SQuAD (question answering), and CoNLL-2003 (named entity recognition).

Current deep learning models often achieve excellent results on benchmark image-to-text datasets but fail to generate texts that are useful in practice. We argue that to close this gap, it is vital to distinguish descriptions from captions based on their distinct communicative roles. Descriptions focus on visual features and are meant to replace an image (often to increase accessibility), whereas captions appear alongside an image to supply additional information. To motivate this distinction and help people put it into practice, we introduce the publicly available Wikipedia-based dataset Concadia consisting of 96,918 images with corresponding English-language descriptions, captions, and surrounding context. Using insights from Concadia, models trained on it, and a preregistered human-subjects experiment with human- and model-generated texts, we characterize the commonalities and differences between descriptions and captions. In addition, we show that, for generating both descriptions and captions, it is useful to augment image-to-text models with representations of the textual context in which the image appeared.

Few images on the Web receive alt-text descriptions that would make them accessible to blind and low vision (BLV) users. Image-based NLG systems have progressed to the point where they can begin to address this persistent societal problem, but these systems will not be fully successful unless we evaluate them on metrics that guide their development correctly. Here, we argue against current referenceless metrics – those that don’t rely on human-generated ground-truth descriptions – on the grounds that they do not align with the needs of BLV users. The fundamental shortcoming of these metrics is that they do not take context into account, whereas contextual information is highly valued by BLV users. To substantiate these claims, we present a study with BLV participants who rated descriptions along a variety of dimensions. An in-depth analysis reveals that the lack of context-awareness makes current referenceless metrics inadequate for advancing image accessibility. As a proof-of-concept, we provide a contextual version of the referenceless metric CLIPScore which begins to address the disconnect to the BLV data.

Crime reporting is a prevalent form of journalism with the power to shape public perceptions and social policies. How does the language of these reports act on readers? We seek to address this question with the SuspectGuilt Corpus of annotated crime stories from English-language newspapers in the U.S. For SuspectGuilt, annotators read short crime articles and provided text-level ratings concerning the guilt of the main suspect as well as span-level annotations indicating which parts of the story they felt most influenced their ratings. SuspectGuilt thus provides a rich picture of how linguistic choices affect subjective guilt judgments. We use SuspectGuilt to train and assess predictive models which validate the usefulness of the corpus, and show that these models benefit from genre pretraining and joint supervision from the text-level ratings and span-level annotations. Such models might be used as tools for understanding the societal effects of crime reporting.