SimVG: A Simple Framework for Visual Grounding with Decoupled Multi-modal Fusion

Visual grounding is a common vision task that involves grounding descriptive sentences to the corresponding regions of an image. Most existing methods use independent image-text encoding and apply complex hand-crafted modules or encoder-decoder architectures for modal interaction and query reasoning. However, their performance significantly drops when dealing with complex textual expressions. This is because the former paradigm only utilizes limited downstream data to fit the multi-modal feature fusion. Therefore, it is only effective when the textual expressions are relatively simple. In contrast, given the wide diversity of textual expressions and the uniqueness of downstream training data, the existing fusion module, which extracts multimodal content from a visual-linguistic context, has not been fully investigated. In this paper, we present a simple yet robust transformer-based framework, SimVG, for visual grounding. Specifically, we decouple visual-linguistic feature fusion from downstream tasks by leveraging existing multimodal pre-trained models and incorporating additional object tokens to facilitate deep integration of downstream and pre-training tasks. Furthermore, we design a dynamic weight-balance distillation method in the multi-branch synchronous learning process to enhance the representation capability of the simpler branch. This branch only consists of a lightweight MLP, which simplifies the structure and improves reasoning speed. Experiments on six widely used VG datasets, i.e., RefCOCO/+/g, ReferIt, Flickr30K, and GRefCOCO, demonstrate the superiority of SimVG. Finally, the proposed method not only achieves improvements in efficiency and convergence speed but also attains new state-of-the-art performance on these benchmarks. Codes and models will be available at \url{https://github.com/Dmmm1997/SimVG}.

Paper

References (91)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer MFGp8/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-09

Summary

This paper presents SimVG, which decouples multimodal understanding from downstream tasks and uses the pretrained model to perform feature extraction and multi-modal fusion. A dynamic weight-balance distillation (DWBD) module is proposed to enhance the token branch's ability. A text-guided query generation module is developed to integrate text information into queries. Performace validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Strengths

1、Directly using a multi-modality encoder for multi-modal feature extraction and fusion avoids the need for redesigning a multi-modal fusion module. This simplifies the model structure. 2、The proposed DWBD module improves the model's inference efficiency through distillation. 3、Experiments on different benchmarks show better performance than previous SOTA methods

Weaknesses

There is no significant weakness in this paper.

Questions

1. Will the multi-modality encoder be trained or are the parameters frozen? 2. Visualization of the feature map could be provided.

Rating

8

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

No significant limitations

Reviewer 3YFV5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This manuscript introduces SimVG, a framework based on BEiT-3 that simultaneously encodes image, text, and object tokens. Additionally, it proposes a dynamic weight-balance distillation (DWBD) method to improve the simpler branch (MLP), thereby enhancing reasoning speed. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated across multiple visual grounding datasets.

Strengths

1. The DWBD method enhances the performance of the lightweight branch by balancing the learning process, thereby improving the overall efficiency and accuracy of the model. 2. SimVG achieves competitive results across multiple visual grounding datasets, demonstrating the robustness and effectiveness of the approach.

Weaknesses

1. The technical contribution of the proposed method appears insufficient. The approach primarily builds upon BEiT-3 by adding an object token and a fast MLP head with a distillation loss, which may seem more like an application of BEiT-3 rather than a novel contribution. 2. Although the paper aims to simplify the structure and improve reasoning speed, the overall architecture and the introduction of multiple new components (e.g., DWBD, TQG) add complexity during training. The process involves two-stage pretraining and fine-tuning steps, which can be cumbersome and resource-intensive. 3. Could you clarify whether the model was pretrained from scratch or if existing BEiT-3 weights were used? 4. I recommend thorough proofreading to enhance clarity and correctness, improving readability and quality.

Questions

See weakness.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

None.

Reviewer qCaP6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-14

Summary

Visual grouding is a typical task in vision and language domain. Existing methods only use limited downstream data to fit multimodal feature fusion, leading to significant performance degradation on complex texts. Therefore, it is necessary to decouple visual-language feature fusion from downstream tasks to promote deep integration between downstream tasks and pre-training tasks. in this paper, the authors proposed the SimVG model framework. They Introduced a dynamic distillation method and a query generation module. Experimental results on several datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the model.

Strengths

- The design of the distillation method is innovative, and TQG enables the model to be extended to GREC, broadening its application scope. - The experiments on serveal datasets of the model performs well, achieving state-of-the-art levels on multiple datasets with relatively few parameters.

Weaknesses

- The writing needs improvement; for example, the motivation is not clearly and concisely described. - The inference process of the model should be explained in the main text. - In Table 3, why is there no comparison with PolyFormer-L, OFA-L, LGR-NET, and m-PLUG? For a fair comparison, at least these should be listed. - There are some typos, such as: 1. Line 156, "an caption" should be "a caption". 2. Line 165, "R^{H/32 * W/32 * C}".

Questions

In Table 3, why is there no comparison with PolyFormer-L, OFA-L, and m-PLUG? For a fair comparison, at least these should be listed.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

In appendix, D4, the limitation section is provided.

Reviewer TBfU5/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-16

Summary

This paper introduces a transformer-based framework called SimVG for the visual grounding task, which, unlike CLIP-based models, decouples multimodal fusion from the downstream task into the model pretraining stage. SimVG modifies a recently proposed multimodal fusion encoder architecture (BEiT-3) to generate the fused feature representation, and adopts a lightweight MLP module instead of a complex encoder-decoder structure for visual grounding prediction. To make the MLP prediction head work, the paper proposes a synchronous distillation learning process that trains the MLP prediction head and a complex decoder branch at the same time w/ dynamic weights between the two branches. Experiments on six widely used visual grounding datasets show that the proposed SimVG framework not only achieves the state-of-the-art performance, but also brings considerable improvements in efficiency and convergence speed.

Strengths

* This paper successfully adapts a recent multimodal pretraining framework (BEiT-3) to visual grounding, and proposed a few model architecture improvements, making the end-to-end framework more efficient (1x faster) and more accurate (2~3% improvements in prediction accuracy). * The basic idea of the paper is presented clearly. The experiments performed in this paper is convincing to show the effectiveness of each of the proposed modules.

Weaknesses

* The novelty of the paper is a bit limited to me since it basically borrows and applies the unified multimodal pretraining framework introduced in BEiT-3 to the visual grounding task. A clearer comparison between the proposed method and the BEiT-3 model is desired. * The title and module names in Fig 3 is a bit confusing to me (at first sight w/o reading the whole paper) since many abbreviations are used. It's helpful to make them clearer to the readers. * I noticed some grammar mistakes, e.g. in L167-168 "to interact with A with B".

Questions

Please refer to the points I mentioned in the weakness section. Besides, I am wondering why the proposed synchronous distillation process is needed and its advantages over traditional model distillation process. Does traditional model distillation process work poorly?

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

No obvious limitations noticed by me.

Reviewer MFGp2024-08-12

Official comment by Reviewer MFGp

I thank the authors for their efforts and detailed rebuttal. I have read through all the other reviewers' comments and the authors' responses. I decide to raise my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Dear Reviewers, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to kindly remind you to review the detailed rebuttal I have submitted in response to your feedback. I have carefully addressed the points you raised, and your insights would be invaluable in the final evaluation. Given your important role in this process, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your response at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards

Reviewer 3YFV2024-08-13

Thank you for your response. After reviewing other reviews and responses, I have decided to increase my rating to 5. I hope you can carefully integrate the rebuttals into the revised version and thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript. While the technical aspects are borderline acceptable, my main concern remains the writing quality of this manuscript. Thank you.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC