Cited by 68Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

A Survey of Current Datasets for Vision and Language Research

Open access
Ferraro, Francis, Mostafazadeh, Nasrin, Huang, Ting-Hao, Vanderwende, Lucy, Devlin, Jacob, Galley, Michel, Mitchell, Margaret·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Francis Ferraro, Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Ting-Hao Huang, Lucy Vanderwende, Jacob Devlin, Michel Galley, Margaret Mitchell. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2015.

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 · 10.18653/v1/d15-1021

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Most previous multimodal benchmarks have focused on a single research area such as within affective computing, human multimodal language, language and vision-based question answering, text classification with external multimodal information, and multimodal learning for education.

    “Most previous multimodal benchmarks have focused on a single research area such as within affective computing [56], human multimodal language [177], language and vision-based question answering [50, 138], text classification with external multimodal information [60], and multimodal learning for education [65].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. David L. Chen and William B. Dolan. 2011. Col- lecting highly parallel data for paraphrase evalua- tion. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu- man Language Technologies -Volume 1, HLT '11, pages 190-200, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Jianfu Chen, Polina Kuznetsova, David Warren, and Yejin Choi. 2015. Déjà image-captions: A cor- pus of expressive descriptions in repetition. In Pro- ceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 504-514, Denver, Colorado, May-June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. L. Frazier. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. M. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Compu- tational, and Theoretical Perspectives, pages 129- 189. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  4. Mateusz Malinowski and Mario Fritz. 2014. A multi- world approach to question answering about real- world scenes based on uncertain input. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27, pages 1682-1690.
  5. Jonathan Malmaud, Jonathan Huang, Vivek Rathod, Nicholas Johnston, Andrew Rabinovich, and Kevin Murphy. 2015. Whats cookin? interpreting cook- ing videos using text, speech and vision. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT 2015), May 31 -June 5, 2015, Denver, Colorado USA.
  6. Mengye Ren, Ryan Kiros, and Richard Zemel. 2015. Question answering about images using visual se- mantic embeddings. In Deep Learning Workshop, ICML 2015.
  7. Marcus Rohrbach, Sikandar Amin, Mykhaylo An- driluka, and Bernt Schiele. 2012. A database for fine grained activity detection of cooking activities. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, IEEE, June.
  8. Terry Winograd. 1972. Understanding Natural Lan- guage. Academic Press, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferraro, F., Mostafazadeh, N., Huang, T.-H., Vanderwende, L., Devlin, J., Galley, M., & Mitchell, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2015
Pages
207-213
OpenAlex
W1749884237
Cited by
68
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13
FWCI
4.51
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
multimodal dataset, visual grounding, image-text dataset

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