用合成数据测试视觉语言模型的零样本推理能力,发现大模型文本描述更有效。
Zero-Shot Visual Reasoning by Vision-Language Models: Benchmarking and Analysis
- 用纯文本描述场景比视觉嵌入更能提升推理表现
- 1750亿参数的大模型在思维链提示下准确率高出18%
- 小模型用思维链提示反而更差,说明高阶推理需大模型支撑
视觉语言模型(VLMs)在真实世界视觉问答(VQA)基准上展现出出色的零样本和少样本性能,暗示其具备视觉推理能力。然而现有基准混淆了纯粹视觉推理与常识知识,并且问题推理步骤有限。为此,我们通过合成数据集系统性地评估VLM的零样本视觉推理能力,该数据集需最少常识知识,且可分析多步推理。重点考察两点:一、将场景信息以视觉嵌入或纯文本描述提供给底层大语言模型(LLM)的效果差异;二、思维链(CoT)提示相比标准提示在零样本视觉推理中的有效性。结果表明,当输入为文本描述时,底层LLM表现更优,尤其在PTR数据集上准确率高出18%。此外,仅在大型GPT-3.5-Turbo(175B)模型上,CoT提示优于标准提示;对较小模型则效果更差。这表明,在常识有限条件下,大型模型才可能涌现视觉推理的思维链能力。总体而言,我们揭示了当前VLM和LLM在复杂视觉推理上的局限性,并突显了LLM在其中的关键作用。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown impressive zero- and few-shot performance on real-world visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks, alluding to their capabilities as visual reasoning engines. However, the benchmarks being used conflate "pure" visual reasoning with world knowledge, and also have questions that involve a limited number of reasoning steps. Thus, it remains unclear whether a VLM's apparent visual reasoning performance is due to its world knowledge, or due to actual visual reasoning capabilities. To clarify this ambiguity, we systematically benchmark and dissect the zero-shot visual reasoning capabilities of VLMs through synthetic datasets that require minimal world knowledge, and allow for analysis over a broad range of reasoning steps. We focus on two novel aspects of zero-shot visual reasoning: i) evaluating the impact of conveying scene information as either visual embeddings or purely textual scene descriptions to the underlying large language model (LLM) of the VLM, and ii) comparing the effectiveness of chain-of-thought prompting to standard prompting for zero-shot visual reasoning. We find that the underlying LLMs, when provided textual scene descriptions, consistently perform better compared to being provided visual embeddings. In particular, 18% higher accuracy is achieved on the PTR dataset. We also find that CoT prompting performs marginally better than standard prompting only for the comparatively large GPT-3.5-Turbo (175B) model, and does worse for smaller-scale models. This suggests the emergence of CoT abilities for visual reasoning in LLMs at larger scales even when world knowledge is limited. Overall, we find limitations in the abilities of VLMs and LLMs for more complex visual reasoning, and highlight the important role that LLMs can play in visual reasoning.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。