PreprintCited by 7Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Benchmarking Robustness of Multimodal Image-Text Models under Distribution Shift

Open access
Qiu, Jielin, Zhu, Yi, Shi, Xingjian, Wenzel, Florian, Tang, Zhiqiang, Zhao, Ding, Li, Bo, Li, Mu·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Multimodal image-text models have shown remarkable performance in the past few years. However, evaluating robustness against distribution shifts is crucial before adopting them in real-world applications. In this work, we investigate the robustness of 12 popular open-sourced image-text models under common perturbations on five tasks (image-text retrieval, visual reasoning, visual entailment, image captioning, and text-to-image generation). In particular, we propose several new multimodal robustness benchmarks by applying 17 image perturbation and 16 text perturbation techniques on top of existing datasets. We observe that multimodal models are not robust to image and text perturbations, especially to image perturbations. Among the tested perturbation methods, character-level perturbations constitute the most severe distribution shift for text, and zoom blur is the most severe shift for image data. We also introduce two new robustness metrics (\textbf{MMI} for MultiModal Impact score and \textbf{MOR} for Missing Object Rate) for proper evaluations of multimodal models. We hope our extensive study sheds light on new directions for the development of robust multimodal models. More details can be found on the project webpage: \url{https://MMRobustness.github.io}.

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.2212.08044

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qiu, J., Zhu, Y., Shi, X., Wenzel, F., Tang, Z., Zhao, D., Li, B., & Li, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311730907
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • 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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
robustness, distribution shift, robustness benchmark, image perturbation, text perturbation, image-text retrieval, visual reasoning, visual entailment, image captioning, text-to-image generation, robustness metrics

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