Cited by 5,107Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations

Open access
Krishna, Ranjay, Zhu, Yuke, Groth, Oliver, Johnson, Justin, Hata, Kenji, Kravitz, Joshua, Chen, Stephanie, Kalantidis, Yannis +4 more·2017·International Journal of Computer Vision

Abstract

Despite progress in perceptual tasks such as image classification, computers still perform poorly on cognitive tasks such as image description and question answering. Cognition is core to tasks that involve not just recognizing, but reasoning about our visual world. However, models used to tackle the rich content in images for cognitive tasks are still being trained using the same datasets designed for perceptual tasks. To achieve success at cognitive tasks, models need to understand the interactions and relationships between objects in an image. When asked “What vehicle is the person riding?”, computers will need to identify the objects in an image as well as the relationships riding(man, carriage) and pulling(horse, carriage) to answer correctly that “the person is riding a horse-drawn carriage.” In this paper, we present the Visual Genome dataset to enable the modeling of such relationships. We collect dense annotations of objects, attributes, and relationships within each image to learn these models. Specifically, our dataset contains over 108K images where each image has an average of $$35$$ objects, $$26$$ attributes, and $$21$$ pairwise relationships between objects. We canonicalize the objects, attributes, relationships, and noun phrases in region descriptions and questions answer pairs to WordNet synsets. Together, these annotations represent the densest and largest dataset of image descriptions, objects, attributes, relationships, and question answer pairs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11263-016-0981-7

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 123 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Girshick, R. (2015). Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE interna- tional conference on computer vision (pp. 1440-1448).
  2. Hayes, P. J. (1985). The second naive physics manifesto. Theories of the commonsense world (pp. 1-36).
  3. Lu, C., Krishna, R., Bernstein, M., & Fei-Fei, L. (2016). Visual rela- tionship detection using language priors. In European conference on computer vision (ECCV). IEEE.
  4. Niu, F., Zhang, C., Ré, C., & Shavlik, J. (2012). Elementary: Large-scale knowledge-base construction via machine learning and statistical inference. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), 8(3), 42-73.
  5. Xie, M. W. Jones, & G. K. L. Tam (Eds.), Proceedings of the British machine vision conference (BMVC 2015) (pp. 52.1-52.12). BMVA Press.
  6. Thomee, B., Shamma, D. A., Friedland, G., Elizalde, B., Ni, K., Poland, D., et al. (2016). YFCC100M: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 64-73.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krishna, R., Zhu, Y., Groth, O., Johnson, J., Hata, K., Kravitz, J., Chen, S., Kalantidis, Y., Li, L.-J., Shamma, D. A., Bernstein, M. S., & Fei-Fei, L.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
  • Yahoo (United States) (US)
  • Snap (United States) (US)
  • Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (NL)
Corresponding author
Krishna, Ranjay
Venue
International Journal of Computer Vision
Published
2017-02-06
Volume
123
Issue
1
Pages
32-73
ISSN
  • 0920-5691 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1405
OpenAlex
W2277195237
Cited by
5,107
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 313 · 2025: 508 · 2024: 690 · 2023: 761 · 2022: 671 · 2021: 738 · 2020: 586 · 2019: 411 · 2018: 230 · 2017: 149 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
156.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Computer Vision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Brown Institute for Media Innovation
  • Yahoo Inc.
  • Stanford University Computer Science Department
  • Office of Naval Research
  • Toyota USA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
object relations, picture description, question answering, object properties, WordNet synsets, visual cognition, crowdsourced annotation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review