ICML 2024 Papers

Recent vision-language models have achieved tremendous advances. However, their computational costs are also escalating dramatically, making model acceleration exceedingly critical. To pursue more efficient vision-language Transformers, this paper introduces Cross-Guided Ensemble of Tokens (CrossGET), a general acceleration framework for vision-language Transformers. This framework adaptively combines tokens in real-time during inference, significantly reducing computational costs while maintaining high performance. CrossGET features two primary innovations: 1) Cross-Guided Matching and Ensemble. CrossGET leverages cross-modal guided token matching and ensemble to effectively utilize cross-modal information, achieving wider applicability across both modality-independent models, e.g., CLIP, and modality-dependent ones, e.g., BLIP2. 2) Complete-Graph Soft Matching. CrossGET introduces an algorithm for the token-matching mechanism, ensuring reliable matching results while facilitating parallelizability and high efficiency. Extensive experiments have been conducted on various vision-language tasks, such as image-text retrieval, visual reasoning, image captioning, and visual question answering. The performance on both classic multimodal architectures and emerging multimodal LLMs demonstrates the framework's effectiveness and versatility. The code is available at https://github.com/sdc17/CrossGET.

Modern computer vision offers a great variety of models to practitioners, and selecting a model from multiple options for specific applications can be challenging. Conventionally, competing model architectures and training protocols are compared by their classification accuracy on ImageNet. However, this single metric does not fully capture performance nuances critical for specialized tasks. In this work, we conduct an in-depth comparative analysis of model behaviors beyond ImageNet accuracy, for both ConvNet and Vision Transformer architectures, each across supervised and CLIP training paradigms. Although our selected models have similar ImageNet accuracies and compute requirements, we find that they differ in many other aspects: types of mistakes, output calibration, transferability, and feature invariance, among others. This diversity in model characteristics, not captured by traditional metrics, highlights the need for more nuanced analysis when choosing among different models.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen a tremendous surge in capabilities thanks to the use of foundation models trained on internet-scale data. On the flip side, the uncurated nature of internet-scale data also poses significant privacy and legal risks, as they often contain personal information or copyrighted material that should not be trained on without permission. In this work, we propose as a mitigation measure a recipe to train foundation vision models via self-supervised learning with differential privacy (DP) guarantee. We identify masked autoencoders as a suitable learning algorithm that aligns well with DP-SGD, and train *ViP*---a **Vi**sion transformer with differential **P**rivacy---under a strict privacy budget of $\epsilon=8$ on the LAION400M dataset. We evaluate the quality of representation learned by ViP using standard downstream vision tasks; in particular, ViP achieves a (non-private) linear probing accuracy of 55.7% on ImageNet, comparable to that of end-to-end trained AlexNet (trained and evaluated on ImageNet). Our result suggests that scaling to internet-scale data can be practical for private learning. Code and DP pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/ViP-MAE.

Does the stethoscope in the picture make the adjacent person a doctor or a patient? This, of course, depends on the contextual relationship of the two objects. If it’s obvious, why don’t explanation methods for vision models use contextual information? In this paper, we (1) review the most popular methods of explaining computer vision models by pointing out that they do not take into account context information, (2) show examples of failures of popular XAI methods, (3) provide examples of real-world use cases where spatial context plays a significant role, (4) propose new research directions that may lead to better use of context information in explaining computer vision models, (5) argue that a change in approach to explanations is needed from *where* to *how*.