Learning Convolutional Text Representations for Visual Question Answering

by   Zhengyang Wang, et al.
Washington State University

Visual question answering is a recently proposed artificial intelligence task that requires a deep understanding of both images and texts. In deep learning, images are typically modeled through convolutional neural networks, and texts are typically modeled through recurrent neural networks. While the requirement for modeling images is similar to traditional computer vision tasks, such as object recognition and image classification, visual question answering raises a different need for textual representation as compared to other natural language processing tasks. In this work, we perform a detailed analysis on natural language questions in visual question answering. Based on the analysis, we propose to rely on convolutional neural networks for learning textual representations. By exploring the various properties of convolutional neural networks specialized for text data, such as width and depth, we present our "CNN Inception + Gate" model. We show that our model improves question representations and thus the overall accuracy of visual question answering models. We also show that the text representation requirement in visual question answering is more complicated and comprehensive than that in conventional natural language processing tasks, making it a better task to evaluate textual representation methods. Shallow models like fastText, which can obtain comparable results with deep learning models in tasks like text classification, are not suitable in visual question answering.


page 2

page 8


Functorial Language Games for Question Answering

We present some categorical investigations into Wittgenstein's language-...

An Empirical Evaluation of various Deep Learning Architectures for Bi-Sequence Classification Tasks

Several tasks in argumentation mining and debating, question-answering, ...

A Fully Attention-Based Information Retriever

Recurrent neural networks are now the state-of-the-art in natural langua...

Learning What Makes a Difference from Counterfactual Examples and Gradient Supervision

One of the primary challenges limiting the applicability of deep learnin...

What can AI do for me: Evaluating Machine Learning Interpretations in Cooperative Play

Machine learning is an important tool for decision making, but its ethic...

Modulating early visual processing by language

It is commonly assumed that language refers to high-level visual concept...

Using Recurrent Neural Network for Learning Expressive Ontologies

Recently, Neural Networks have been proven extremely effective in many n...

Code Repositories


Deep learning, visual question answering, convolutional neural networks, text representations

1 Introduction.

Visual question answering (VQA) [1, 11] asks an agent to generate an accurate answer to a natural language question that queries an image (Figure 1). This composite task involves a variety of artificial intelligence fields, such as computer vision, natural language processing, knowledge representation and reasoning. With the great success of deep learning in these fields, an effective VQA agent can be built with applications of artificial neural networks. A typical design is to use an answer generator based on a joint representation of image and text inputs [1]. A considerable body of research has been conducted on how to efficiently combine image and text representations [6, 12, 26, 27, 17], while the fundamental question of learning these representations specifically for VQA has not generated a lot of interests. In this work, we perform a detailed analysis on text data in VQA and design text representation learning methods that are appropriate for this task.

In VQA, the subtask of extracting visual information can be well addressed by models commonly used in computer vision tasks like object detection [16, 7] and image classification [15, 7, 23], because they share a similar requirement for image representations. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [15] have achieved significant breakthroughs in computer vision and can be directly used in VQA. In natural language processing, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) [21] are widely used to learn text representations in tasks like sentiment classification [13, 5, 28, 3], language modeling [4, 18], and machine translation [2, 25, 22]. Parallel to image representations, most previous VQA models [1, 6, 12, 26, 27, 17] directly rely on RNNs to extract textual information. However, our detailed analysis reveals some special properties of text data in VQA, which indicates that RNNs may not be the best fit for learning text representations in VQA.

With the above analysis and insight, we propose to apply CNNs for learning text representations in VQA. Our experiments show that a very simple CNN-based model outperforms a RNN-based model that has much more parameters, a result consistent with our analysis. We further explore techniques from CNNs for images and make specialized improvements to build more effective models. Different methods for text vectorization are also tested and analyzed. Our best model yields a substantial improvement as compared to VQA models with RNN-based text models.

Our analysis also demonstrates a higher requirement for text representations in VQA than that in traditional text tasks. Recent study on text classification showed that a shallow model named fastText [10] can achieve comparable accuracies with deep learning models with much faster computation. It is speculated that simple text classification only needs shallow representation power. To validate our analysis, we conduct experiments on learning text representations using fastText in VQA and observe a significant decrease in accuracy. As a result, employing deep models to learn text representations is more appropriate.

Figure 1: An example of VQA task.

2 Background.

In this section, we describe convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks and a common design pattern of VQA models.

2.1 Convolutional Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which apply convolutional kernels in artificial neural networks, have outperformed many other methods in computer vision tasks. Unlike in image data processing, where convolutional kernels are hardwired to be primitive feature detectors, CNNs train the parameters of kernels, deciding what kinds of features are important to specific tasks. By stacking several convolution layers, CNNs extract a hierarchy of increasingly high-level image features. These features are then used as inputs to a classifier, a text generator, or a decoder, depending on tasks. CNNs are considered as a natural choice for matrix data like images which have fixed sizes.

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are developed for processing sequential data. In natural language processing, text data is naturally a type of sequential data so that RNNs are widely used in text tasks. However, recent studies have shown that applying CNNs on sequential data with appropriate pooling layers is feasible and able to obtain comparable results [13, 5, 28, 3, 4, 9]. In this work, we look into text data in VQA and propose a CNN-based model to learn text representations based on our analysis and the characteristics of CNNs. Details are discussed in Section 3.

2.2 Visual Question Answering.

Visual question answering (VQA) is considered as an advanced AI task, since both visual and textual understanding and knowledge reasoning are needed in VQA. Deep learning has shown its power in a variety of AI tasks. However, training deep learning models demands a large amount of data. To this end, various datasets aimed at VQA are collected and published [11]. In [1]

, a VQA dataset (COCO-VQA) with a well-defined quantitative evaluation metric was made available.

Most current VQA models share a similar design pattern. That is, they consist of four basic components: an image feature extractor, a text feature extractor, a feature combiner and a classifier. Image feature extractors are usually pre-trained CNN-based models for image classification, such as ResNet [7], and GoogLeNet [23]. Better classification models yield better results when used in VQA models. However, this is not the case on text side, as discussed in Section 3. Currently, most text feature extractors are RNNs like LSTMs [8]. To the best of our knowledge, only a very simple CNN has been tried in [27] and, without careful analysis and design, it only achieved similar performances as RNNs. This work provides a wide exploration of CNN-based text feature extractors based on detailed analysis and obtains considerably better results. For feature combiners, most efforts in VQA research have been devoted to improving them to get a better joint representation derived from image and text representations. [6] won the VQA challenge on COCO-VQA by proposing the multimodal compact bilinear (MCB) pooling, which was further improved in [12]. In addition, the attention mechanism has been proved to be effective as part of the combiner with its ability to guide feature extractors to extract more related information [27, 17]. Contrast to these works, we address the more fundamental question of how to learn better text representations specifically for VQA. Finally, as proposed in [1], we can cast the VQA problem into a classification problem, where the joint representation is used as the input to a classifier.

3 Text Representations in VQA.

3.1 Analysis of Texts in VQA.

Natural language questions in VQA are different from other text data in several aspects. First, people tend to ask short questions, according to different VQA datasets [11]. For example, the longest question in the training set of COCO-VQA contains only words, and the average length is . Most questions have to

words. Second, the required level for text understanding in VQA differs from that in conventional natural language processing tasks. For instance, in sentiment analysis 

[13], the model only needs to tell whether the sentiment is positive or negative. So it will focus on emotional words but pay little attention to other contents. In VQA, however, in order to answer a question, a comprehensive understanding is required since a question can ask anything. As a result, text feature extractors in VQA should be more powerful and collects comprehensive information from raw texts. Third, questions are different from declarative sentences in terms of syntax. And in VQA, words in a question are highly related to the contents of its corresponding image.

Based on these properties, we argue that, as compared to RNNs, CNNs are the better choice for text feature extraction in VQA. By analyzing how human beings process questions, we observe that there are two keys in question understanding: one is understanding the question type and the other is catching objects mentioned in the question and the relationships among them. In many cases, the question type, which is usually determined by the first a few words, directly describes what the answer looks like [1]. Answers to questions starting with “Is the”, “Is there”, “Do” are typically “yes” or “no”. “What number” and “How many” questions must have numbers as answers. Questions beginning with “What color”, “What animal”, “What sport” and so on all explicitly indicate their answers’ categories. Meanwhile, objects and their relationships are usually nouns and prepositional phrases, respectively. They provide guidance on locating answer-related facts in the image, which is the fundamental part of the attention mechanism in VQA models.

Now the task of text feature extraction becomes clear; that is, to obtain a feature vector consisting of information about the question type and objects being queried. To be more specific, the text representation is supposed to extract what the starting words, nouns as well as prepositional phrases represent. Considering words and phrases as features of text, a model specializing on feature detection should be an appropriate choice. RNNs like LSTMs do not have explicit feature detection units. In contrast to convolutional connections in CNNs, the connections within and between units in RNNs are mostly fully-connected.

To summarize, CNNs are conceptually more appropriate as text feature extractors in VQA, which is also validated by our experiments. Additional advantages provided by CNNs are fewer parameters and easy parallelization, which accelerate training and testing and reduce the risk of over-fitting.

3.2 Transforming Text Data.

A challenge of applying CNNs on text data is how to convert raw texts in a format that CNNs can take, as they are originally designed for fixed-size matrix data like images. To apply CNNs on texts directly, we need to represent text data in the same way as how image data are represented. An image is typically stored as a

-dimensional tensor, where the three dimensions correspond to height, width, and number of channels, respectively. Each pixel of the image is represented as a

-component vector corresponding to channels.

Inspired by the bag-of-words model in natural language processing, a vocabulary is first built. The vocabulary can be either word-based that contains words appearing in the texts, or character-based, which is fixed for a particular language. It is also reasonable for the vocabulary to include punctuation as single words or characters. With the vocabulary, each sentence can be transformed into an pseudo image whose height equals to and width is defined based on the vocabulary. For word-level representations, the width is number of words in a sentence; for character-level representations, we count the number of characters. For the third dimension, similar to pixels in an image, if we can convert each word as a vector, the length of the vector is the number of channels. The problem is then reduced to word vectorization, which is usually done by one-hot vectorization.

To make it concrete, we take the word-based vocabulary as an example, and the character-based case can be easily generalized in Section 3.3. Given a vocabulary , each word can be represented as a one-hot vector; namely a -component vector with one at the position corresponding to the index of the word in and s for other entries, where is the size of . With one-hot vectorization, the number of channels becomes . As a result, a sentence with words is treated as a pseudo image with channels, and it can be given into CNNs directly by modifying the height of convolutional kernels into correspondingly.

While one-hot embedding works well as inputs to CNNs in some cases [9], it is usually preferable to have a lower dimensional embedding with two primary reasons. First, if is large, which is usually the case for word-based vocabulary, computation efficiency is low due to the sparsity and high dimensionality of inputs. Second, one-hot embedding is semantically meaningless. Thus, an extra embedding layer is usually inserted before CNNs. This layer maps the -component vectors into -component vectors, where is much smaller than  [13, 5]. The embedding layer is basically a multiplication of one-hot vectors with a matrix to perform a look-up operation. The embedding matrix can be trained as part of the networks, which are task-specialized, or can be pre-trained using word embedding like Word2Vec [19] or GloVe [20]. Figure 2 provides a complete view of the transformations.

Figure 2: Illustration on employing CNNs to learn text representations. Given a word-based vocabulary , we first transform the -word sentence into a image with channels by one-hot vectorization. The blue units represent and white units represent for this layer. Through the embedding layer, the number of channels is reduced to (Section 3.2). Then CNNs with

-D kernel can be directly applied. After convolution, a max-pooling over the whole sentence is performed to provide fix-sized inputs for the classifier (Section 

3.4). Wider and deeper convolution layers can be added to this module easily. The part in the dotted box illustrates the case where character-based vocabulary is used to supplement word embedding vectors (Section 3.3). In addition to the word-based vocabulary, a character-based vocabulary is provided. It transforms the -character word into a image with channels through the same transformation. Then the embedding layer changes the number of channels to . A CNN-based module followed by a global max-pooling generates a word embedding, which is then concatenated to the word embedding obtained from word-based vocabulary, generating the final pseudo image with channels. Note that here the CNN module is shared among different words.

3.3 Word-Based versus Character-Based Representations.

Note that once a vocabulary is built, the remaining process to transform texts follows the same path for different vocabularies. It is clear that the vocabulary defines the pixels in the pseudo image. In the above example, each word becomes a pixel. If the vocabulary is character-based, each character, including space character and single punctuation, will be a pixel.

The main advantage of character-based vocabulary is that it produces much longer inputs. This makes it possible for using deeper models. For long texts, transforming text data using character-based vocabulary and applying very deep CNNs leads to impressive performances [3, 28]. Another advantage is that characters may include knowledge about how to form words. However, for short texts, the size of the transformed data is still small even with character-based vocabulary. Our experiments show that effective models for long texts with character-based vocabulary fail to obtain high performances in VQA (Section 3.5). It is believed that the inputs are too short for the models to learn that space is the delimiter for words, which is naturally given in word-based vocabulary case.

A combination of character-based and word-based vocabularies for short tests has been explored in [5] and achieved comparable results. In this method, characters corresponding to each word are grouped together. Each group of characters is transformed by character-based vocabulary and then fed into a smaller model to generate a word vector. The word vector is then concatenated with the corresponding word embedding from word-based vocabulary to form a larger word representation. More details are given in Figure 2. This method is also explored in our experiments. Nevertheless, character-based vocabulary does not seem to be helpful.

3.4 Handling Variable-Length Inputs.

Another problem for text data is that each sentence is composed of different numbers of words, which leads to variable-sized inputs and outputs of convolution layers. However, the outputs of the whole CNN module are expected to be fixed-sized, in order to serve as inputs to next module. Moreover, the sizes of inputs to CNNs should also be consistent in consideration of training.

Inspired by the pooling layers in CNNs for images [15], several pooling layers specialized for text data of variable lengths have been proposed [13, 9]. We adopt the method that applies one pooling for the whole sentence and selects the largest values instead of performing pooling locally. This is called -max pooling. By fixing for the last pooling layer of CNNs, the requirement for fixed-sized outputs is satisfied. If , it results in a global max-pooling. More details are given in Figure 2.

While pooling layers can provide fixed-sized outputs regardless of the size of inputs, fixed-sized inputs are also desired due to mini-batch training. The solution is to perform padding and cropping. Cropping is usually used in the case of long texts, especially with character-based vocabulary, which simply cuts the part longer than a fixed length. For short texts like questions in VQA, zero padding is typically used to pad each input to the same length of the longest ones. This involves a problem that we only know the longest length in the training set while there can be longer data. Thus in practice, a combination of padding and cropping is used during testing.

3.5 Deeper Networks for Short Texts.

For long texts and images, deeper networks are important and beneficial. Obstacles on going deeper are that very deep networks become hard to train and suffer from the degradation problem. Residual networks (ResNet) [7]

overcame these obstacles by adding skip connections from inputs to outputs of one layer or several layers. These skip connections are named residual connections. They enable CNNs with hundreds of layers to be trained efficiently and avoid the accuracy saturation problem. Modified ResNet with

layers for long texts has been explored in text classification with character-based vocabulary [3].

We experiment with a ResNet with layers on texts in VQA with character-based vocabulary. The results indicate that the inputs are too short, and deeper networks suffer from over-fitting instead of training and degradation problems. In fact, comparing to long texts where most samples have more than characters [3] and multi-layer CNNs work well, the length of texts in VQA is not enough for obtaining promising outcomes from multi-layer CNNs. We also explore adding one residual block to simple one-layer models but it also hurts the performances. It turns out that, unlike mappings learned by intermediate layers in very deep models, the mappings learned by the text feature extractor in VQA is not similar to identity function, making the application of skip connections inappropriate.

These observations imply that CNNs on texts in VQA should not be deep. Our experiments show that one-layer models achieved better performances.

3.6 Wider Networks through Inception Modules.

Inception modules, proposed by [23, 13], involve combining convolutional kernels of different sizes in one convolution layer. This technique enables wider convolution layers. The motivation for using inception modules for texts is straight-forward; that is, different-sized kernels extract features from phrases of different lengths. Based on this interpretation, the choice of the number of kernels and their corresponding sizes should be data-dependent, because different-sized phrases may have diverse importance in various text data. We explore the settings and several improvements in our experiments.

3.7 Gated Convolutional Units.

LSTMs and GRUs improve RNNs by adding gates to control information flow. In particular, the output gate controls information flow along the sequential dimension. With this functionality, the output gate can be used on any deep learning models. In [24] an output gate is also applied on CNNs. Unlike LSTMs and GRUs that use fully-connected connections, convolutional connections are used when generating output gates in CNNs. Given an input to CNNs, which in our case is the transformed data from text data, two independent -D convolutional kernels and are used to form the output of the convolution layer as follows:


where is the output gate, is the sigmoid function, represents convolution, denotes element-wise multiplication, and are bias terms. Gated convolutional networks for language modeling was proposed in [4]

, and the activation function for the original outputs was removed. That is, Eq. (

2) is replaced with


In our experiments, we explore both methods and combined gates with inception modules, where different-sized kernels also generate different gates. We achieve our best results with the method in Eq. (3).

3.8 fastText.

In [10] a shallow model named fastText was proposed, and it achieved comparable results with deep learning models on several text classification tasks with much less computation. In fastText, embedding vectors of text data are directly averaged as sentence features. Formally, on a word-based vocabulary, since the pseudo image with channels is actually a concatenation of -component word vectors, the average over word vectors results in a -component sentence vector. This sentence representation is given directly into the classifier. As compared to deep learning models that use CNNs and RNNs, fastText obtains improvements in terms of accuracy while achieving a -fold speed-up due to the small number of parameters.

The performance of fastText casts doubts on using deep learning models. However, it is argued that simple text classification tasks may not take full advantage of the higher representation power of deep learning [10]. As stated in Section 3.1, the task of text understanding in VQA is much more complicated and comprehensive. According to our experiments, deep learning methods are superior to fastText in VQA, a result that is consistent with our analysis.

4 Experimental Studies.

4.1 General Settings.

We report experimental results on COCO-VQA dataset [1]111http://visualqa.org/download.html, which consists of MSCOCO real images with questions. The data are divided into subsets: training ( images with questions), validation ( images with questions) and testing ( images with questions). In COCO-VQA, answers from ten different individuals are collected for each question as ground truths. For training, the top frequent answers among all answers of the training set were chosen to build the answer vocabulary. In each iteration, an in-vocabulary answer is sampled as the label from ten ground truths of each question. If all of the ten answers are out of the answer vocabulary, the question is skipped. To evaluate the accuracy of a generated answer, following evaluation metric was proposed [1]:

where the generated answer is compared with each of the ten ground truth answers, and the corresponding accuracy is computed. Since evaluation on the testing set can only be processed on remote servers during the VQA challenge [1], and the testing labels are not published, we choose to train and validate our models on the training set only instead of the training+validation set like [1, 6], and test on the validation set.

Our baseline model is the challenge winner [6], which uses a -layer LSTM as the text feature extractor. This model is retrained on the training set only. Meanwhile, unlike in [6], we do not use additional data sources like the pre-trained word embedding (Word2Vec, GloVe) and other dataset (Visual Genome [14]) to augment training. In order to explore the power of models, we argue that additional data will narrow the performance gap of different models. For comparison, we only replace the LSTM text feature extractor with CNN models in all experiments. All the results are reported in Table 1. Our code is publicly available222https://github.com/divelab/vqa-text.

Models Y/N No. Other All
LSTM 81.47 34.07 51.14 60.35
Non-Incep 81.75 35.55 51.34 60.73
Incep (w) 81.91 35.99 51.67 61.03
Incep + Res 81.01 34.45 51.69 60.51
Incep + Bot 80.12 35.51 50.58 59.74
Incep + G(A) 82.09 35.47 51.84 61.10
Incep + G 82.46 35.38 52.02 61.33
Incep (c) 78.15 33.79 46.67 56.83
Deep Res 77.19 33.39 46.09 56.14
Incep (c+w) 82.05 35.39 51.43 60.88
Table 1: Comparison of different text feature extractors. Accuracies per answer type are shown. Models are trained on the COCO-VQA training set and tested on the validation set. The retrained baseline model is shown as “LSTM” in Part . The other parts are CNN-based models. “Incep”, “Res”, “Bot”, “G(A)”, “G”, “w”, “c” is short for “Inception”, “Residual”, “Bottleneck”, “Gate (tanh)”, “Gate”, “work”, “char”, respectively.

4.2 Word-Based Models.

Several CNN-based text feature extractors on word-based vocabulary are implemented. The word-based vocabulary, which includes all words that appear in the training set, has size . For word embedding, we fix the dimension . Dropout is applied on text representations before they are given into next module. Part in Table 1 shows the results of these models.

Non-Inception” model is a one-layer model with one convolutional kernel. With max-pooling over the whole sentence, it produces a -component text vector representation. This simple CNN-based model already outperforms the baseline model, demonstrating that CNN-based model is better than RNN-based one in VQA.

Inception (word)” model explores wider CNNs by replacing the single kernel in “CNN Non-Inception” model with several different-sized kernels in the same layer, as stated in Section 3.6. Different kernel settings are explored and their results are given in Table 2. Settings are named in the format “width of kernel (number of feature maps output by this kernel)”. Note that the height of kernel is always . The resulting text vector representation has components. All these models outperform “CNN Non-Inception” model, showing that features extracted from phrases of different lengths complement each other. Table 1 includes the best results. For all models using inception modules, different kernel settings are explored. We only report the best result for other models.

Settings Accuracy
2(512)+3(512)+4(512)+5(512) 61.03
1(512)+3(512)+5(512)+7(512) 60.96
3(1024)+5(512)+7(512) 60.97
1(512)+3(1024)+5(512) 60.95
3(1024)+5(1024) 60.80
Table 2: Overall accuracies for “CNN Inception (word)” models with different kernel settings. Check Section 4.2 for details.
Figure 3: Comparison of accuracy per question type between the “Inception + Gate” model and “LSTM (baseline)” model.

CNN Inception + Residual” model tries going deeper. It adds an identical layer with a residual connection from inputs to outputs to “CNN Inception (word)” model (Section 3.5). The best kernel setting is . The extra layer is supposed to further extract text features but hurt performance in experiments. We conjecture that there is no need to go deeper for the short inputs in VQA. Character-based vocabulary will result in longer inputs and deeper models on it are discussed in Section 4.3.

CNN Inception + Bottleneck” model is inspired by the bottleneck architecture proposed by [7]. We apply bottleneck on the convolution layer of “CNN Inception (word)” model with kernel setting . For models on image tasks, this architecture improves the accuracies while reducing the number of parameters. However, it causes a significant decrease in accuracy to our one-layer model for VQA, which indicates that the bottleneck design is only suitable to very deep models.

CNN Inception + Gate (tanh)” model and “CNN Inception + Gate” model are CNN-based models with output gates introduced in Section 3.7, with Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. Note that we combine the gate architecture with the inception module: for each kernel in the same convolution layer, there is a corresponding . Both methods improve “CNN Inception (word)” model by adding output gates. With Eq. (3), we achieve our best text feature extractor with accuracy. See Figure 3 for a comparison in accuracy per question type between “Inception + Gate” model and “LSTM (baseline)” model. We can see for most question types, “Inception + Gate” model outperforms “LSTM (baseline)” model.

We compare the numbers of parameters of CNN-based text feature extractor with LSTM-based ones in Table 3. CNN models improve the accuracy with much fewer training parameters. This reduces the risk of over-fitting and increases the speed.

Models Number of Parameters
LSTM (baseline) 13,819,904
CNN Non-Inception 1,845,248
CNN Inception (word) 2,152,448
CNN Inception + Gate 4,304,896
Table 3: The number of parameters for each model. We only compute the parameters of the text feature extractor.

4.3 Character-Based Models.

Results for models that involve character-based vocabulary are reported in parts and in Table 1. The two models in part use character-based vocabulary only, while the model in part uses a combination of both vocabularies (Section 3.3). The character-based vocabulary collects characters: all lowercase characters in English, punctuation as well as the space character. The kernel settings for both inception-like models below are . Dropout is also applied.

CNN Inception (char)” model applies the same inception module as “CNN Inception (word)” model but replaces the word-based inputs with character-based inputs. The accuracy drops drastically. As explained in Section 3.3, it is due to the short length of the inputs, which is not enough for the model to learn how to separate characters into words.

CNN Deep Residual” model attempts to take advantage of the longer inputs provided by character-based vocabulary. We stack convolution layers with residual connections and local pooling layers to build a deep model. Contrast to the results of [28, 3], the model fails to work well. Again, comparison indicates the input length as the cause of failure.

CNN Inception (char+word)” model makes use of both word-based and character-based vocabularies as shown in Figure 2. In our model, the characters of each word generate a -component word embedding vector, which is concatenated with the -component word embedding from word-based vocabulary to form a -component vector representing the word. As compared to “CNN Inception (word)” model, it leads to a slight accuracy decrease. This demonstrates that using character-based vocabulary is not able to provide useful information from constituent characters of the word. Based on these experiments, we conclude that character-based vocabulary is not helpful in short input cases like texts in VQA.

4.4 Deep Learning Models versus fastText.

As introduced in Section 3.8, fastText is a shallow model that achieves comparable results with deep learning models in text classification tasks [10]. This result contradicts the common belief that deep learning models can learn better representations. It has been conjectured that the simple text classification task may not be the right one to evaluate text representation methods. Given the higher requirements for text understanding in VQA, we compare these models in VQA. In addition to the original fastText model (“fastText (word)”), which averages word embedding vectors to obtain sentence representations, we also explore fastText (“fastText (char+word)”) with character-based vocabulary. Similar to the idea in Section 3.3, character embedding of each word is averaged to generate part of the word embedding. The results are given in Table 4. We can see the performance gap between deep learning models and fastText. Clearly, it demonstrates the complexity of VQA tasks and the power of deep learning.

Models Accuracy
LSTM (baseline) 60.35
CNN Inception + Gate 61.33
fastText (word) 59.30
fastText (char+word) 59.24
Table 4: Comparison of results between deep learning models and fastText.

5 Conclusions.

We perform detailed analysis on texts in VQA and propose to employ CNNs as text feature extractors in current VQA models. By incorporating recent research achievements in CNNs for images, our best model improves text representations and the overall accuracy. By comparing deep learning models with the fastText, we show that the requirement for text understanding in VQA is more comprehensive and complicated than simple tasks. Based on our research, we believe that our proposed methods can be extensively used for learning text representations in other tasks on text data of similar properties.


This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant IIS-1633359.