atlas

Research map / Vision-language and multimodal / Cross-modal learning

Hierarchical Aligned Multimodal Learning for NER on Tweet Posts

AAAI 2024 · Vision-language and multimodal › Cross-modal learning · approach: Probabilistic embeddings for cross-modal retrieval · 9 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes HamLearning, an end-to-end hierarchical multimodal NER model that measures text-image relevance and iteratively aligns global/local visual features with words, evaluated on Twitter-2015 and Twitter-2017.

Problem

Multimodal named entity recognition on tweets suffers from noisy or irrelevant images and neglects implicit visual scene knowledge and multi-level vision-text alignment.

Approach

Combines intra-modality encoding (BERT+Transformer for text; ViT semantic and R-GCN spatial graph over detected objects for vision), a learned text-image relevance score that gates global visual features without auxiliary relevance-classification tasks, and iterative cross-modal Transformer co-attention before CRF decoding.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Add R-GCN spatial visual encoding (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 75.07 -> 76.49; 86.05 -> 87.13Helped
Add ViT semantic visual encoding (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 75.18 -> 76.49; 86.14 -> 87.13Helped
Add relevance measuring (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 74.61 -> 76.49; 85.60 -> 87.13Helped
Set cross-modal interaction iterations L to 1 instead of 3 (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 75.23 vs 76.49; 85.73 vs 87.13Hurt
Set cross-modal interaction iterations L to 2 instead of 3 (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 75.98 vs 76.49; 86.67 vs 87.13Hurt
Set cross-modal interaction iterations L to 4 instead of 3 (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 76.49 vs 75.77; 87.13 vs 86.40Hurt
Set cross-modal interaction iterations L to 5 instead of 3 (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 76.49 vs 75.64; 87.13 vs 86.00Hurt
Replace Faster R-CNN with Mask R-CNN (ablation)HamLearning · TWITTER-2015 and TWITTER-2017 testF1: 76.49 -> 76.33; 87.13 -> 86.73Mixed

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: TWITTER-2015 TWITTER-2017 Visual Genome MS COCO

Benchmarks: TWITTER-2015 TWITTER-2017

Metrics: precision recall F1

Baselines: BiLSTM-CRF CNN-BiLSTM-CRF HBiLSTM-CRF BERT-CRF AdaCAN-BERT-CRF GVATT-BERT-CRF UMT UMGF MAF RDS GEI ITA

Builds on: BERT R-GCN Faster R-CNN CRF decoding

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy