PreprintCited by 41Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoning

Open access
Johnson, Justin, Hariharan, Bharath, van der Maaten, Laurens, Fei-Fei, Li, Zitnick, C. Lawrence, Girshick, Ross·2016·arXiv

Abstract

When building artificial intelligence systems that can reason and answer questions about visual data, we need diagnostic tests to analyze our progress and discover shortcomings. Existing benchmarks for visual question answering can help, but have strong biases that models can exploit to correctly answer questions without reasoning. They also conflate multiple sources of error, making it hard to pinpoint model weaknesses. We present a diagnostic dataset that tests a range of visual reasoning abilities. It contains minimal biases and has detailed annotations describing the kind of reasoning each question requires. We use this dataset to analyze a variety of modern visual reasoning systems, providing novel insights into their abilities and limitations.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1612.06890

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • To the best of the authors' knowledge, none of the existing scene representation benchmarks consider an active camera that can move in the scene.

    “To the best of our knowledge, none of these benchmarks consider an active camera that can move in the scene.”

    From Object-Centric Scene Representations Using Active Inference (2024) · cites this paper as Johnson et al., 2016

    Section 2 (Related Work; page unavailable) discusses visual-understanding benchmarks but does not say whether any allow an active camera. Section 3 (The CLEVR Diagnostic Dataset; page unavailable) says camera positions are randomly jittered when images are generated, which does not establish whether a camera can move actively through a scene. Searches for active and movable cameras found no passage supporting the claim about all existing benchmarks. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

4 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. J. Chen, P. Kuznetsova, D. Warren, and Y. Choi. Deja image- captions: A corpus of expressive image descriptions in repe- tition. In NAACL, 2015. 2
  2. A. Farhadi, M. Hejrati, A. Sadeghi, P. Young, C. Rashtchian, J. Hockenmaier, and D. Forsyth. Every picture tells a story: Generating sentences for images. In ECCV, 2010. 2
  3. A. Jabri, A. Joulin, and L. van der Maaten. Revisiting visual question answering baselines. In ECCV, 2016. 1, 4
  4. A. Joulin and T. Mikolov. Inferring algorithmic patterns with stack-augmented recurrent nets. In NIPS, 2015. 8
  5. H. J. Levesque, E. Davis, and L. Morgenstern. The Wino- grad schema challenge. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Logi- cal Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, volume 46, page 47, 2011. 2
  6. M. Malinowski and M. Fritz. A multi-world approach to question answering about real-world scenes based on uncer- tain input. In NIPS, 2014. 1, 2
  7. M. Malinowski and M. Fritz. Towards a visual Turing chal- lenge. In NIPS 2014 Workshop on Learning Semantics, 2014. 2
  8. A. Ray, G. Christie, M. Bansal, D. Batra, and D. Parikh. Question relevance in vqa: Identifying non-visual and false- premise questions. In EMNLP, 2016. 1
  9. J. Weston, A. Bordes, S. Chopra, A. Rush, B. van Merriënboer, A. Joulin, and T. Mikolov. Towards ai- complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In ICLR, 2016. 2
  10. J. Weston, S. Chopra, and A. Bordes. Memory networks. In ICLR, 2015. 8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, J., Hariharan, B., van der Maaten, L., Fei-Fei, L., Zitnick, C. L., & Girshick, R.
Affiliations
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953212746
Cited by
40
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Keywords
visual reasoning, compositional language, diagnostic dataset, visual question answering, benchmark bias, model weaknesses

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