Papers › Measuring Faithful and Plausible Visual Grounding in VQA
Measuring Faithful and Plausible Visual Grounding in VQA
Daniel Reich, Felix Putze, Tanja Schultz
Metrics for Visual Grounding (VG) in Visual Question Answering (VQA) systems primarily aim to measure a system's reliance on relevant parts of the image when inferring an answer to the given question. Lack of VG has been a common problem among state-of-the-art VQA systems and can manifest in over-reliance on irrelevant image parts or a disregard for the visual modality entirely. Although inference capabilities of VQA models are often illustrated by a few qualitative illustrations, most systems are not quantitatively assessed for their VG properties. We believe, an easily calculated criterion for meaningfully measuring a system's VG can help remedy this shortcoming, as well as add another valuable dimension to model evaluations and analysis. To this end, we propose a new VG metric that captures if a model a) identifies question-relevant objects in the scene, and b) actually relies on the information contained in the relevant objects when producing its answer, i.e., if its visual grounding is both "faithful" and "plausible". Our metric, called "Faithful and Plausible Visual Grounding" (FPVG), is straightforward to determine for most VQA model designs. We give a detailed description of FPVG and evaluate several reference systems spanning various VQA architectures. Code to support the metric calculations on the GQA data set is available on GitHub.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections