Cited by 629Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

VizWiz Grand Challenge: Answering Visual Questions from Blind People

Open access
Gurari, Danna, Li, Qing, Stangl, Abigale J., Guo, Anhong, Lin, Chi, Grauman, Kristen, Luo, Jiebo, Bigham, Jeffrey P.·2018·2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

The study of algorithms to automatically answer visual questions currently is motivated by visual question answering (VQA) datasets constructed in artificial VQA settings. We propose VizWiz, the first goal-oriented VQA dataset arising from a natural VQA setting. VizWiz consists of over 31,000 visual questions originating from blind people who each took a picture using a mobile phone and recorded a spoken question about it, together with 10 crowdsourced answers per visual question. VizWiz differs from the many existing VQA datasets because (1) images are captured by blind photographers and so are often poor quality, (2) questions are spoken and so are more conversational, and (3) often visual questions cannot be answered. Evaluation of modern algorithms for answering visual questions and deciding if a visual question is answerable reveals that VizWiz is a challenging dataset. We introduce this dataset to encourage a larger community to develop more generalized algorithms that can assist blind people.

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 · 10.1109/cvpr.2018.00380

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • VizWiz had over 40% disagreement between crowdworkers and in-house experts on whether a photo contained privacy or quality issues.

    “Prior work reported over 40% disagreement between crowdworkers and in-house experts on whether a photo contained privacy or quality issues [36]”

    From Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

    The supplementary section “I - Filtering Visual Questions” reports disagreement among three domain experts: only one expert marked 44 of the 64 visual questions flagged for removal. Section 3.2 describes a separate, sequential review by crowd workers and in-house experts, but does not report over 40% disagreement between those groups. The claim appears to conflate the expert-only disagreement with the two-stage review. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Academic scholars and industry corporations have emphasized the pressing need for more disability-centered datasets.

    “Although academic scholars and industry corporations have emphasized the pressing need for more disability-centered datasets [20, 38, 55, 79, 97, 111, 124]”

    From "It's trained by non-disabled people": Evaluating How Image Quality Affects Product Captioning with Vision-Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Introduction identifies a gap in existing VQA datasets: none addressed images and questions from blind people. It introduces VizWiz to address that gap. This supports the academic call for disability-centered datasets, but the paper does not establish that industry corporations also emphasized the need. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior efforts of disability-first datasets often focus on the data collection process.

    “While prior efforts of disabilityfirst datasets often focus on the data collection process [36, 47, 63, 68, 88, 98], our study represents an important step in centering disabled people and their expertise throughout the AI development pipeline.”
  • Blind users often struggle to take high-quality photographs, and many visual questions go unanswered because images fail to capture the relevant objects.

    “From analyzing VizWiz images, Gurari et al. [55] found that blind users often struggle to take high-quality photographs, and many visual questions go unanswered because images fail to capture the relevant objects [55].”

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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. P. Anderson, X. He, C. Buehler, D. Teney, M. Johnson, S. Gould, and L. Zhang. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07998, 2017. 7, 8, 12, 14 · arXiv
  2. S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 448- 456, 2015. 12
  3. D. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 12 · arXiv
  4. A. Mahendru, V. Prabhu, A. Mohapatra, D. Batra, and S. Lee. The promise of premise: Harnessing question premises in visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00601, 2017. 1, 3, 6, 8, 14 · arXiv
  5. N. Srivastava, G. E. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neu- ral networks from overfitting. Journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929-1958, 2014. 12
  6. B. Thomee, D. A. Shamma, G. Friedland, B. Elizalde, K. Ni, D. Poland, D. Borth, and L. Li. YFCC100M: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM, 59(2):64-73, 2016. 4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurari, D., Li, Q., Stangl, A. J., Guo, A., Lin, C., Grauman, K., Luo, J., & Bigham, J. P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-06
Pages
3608-3617
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2788643321
Cited by
621
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 17
FWCI
12.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1704309, 1514118, 1755593)
  • Microsoft Research
  • Baidu
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
visual question answering, blind people, assistive technology, low-quality images, answerability

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