Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Brandon McKinzie

dblp:331/5353 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 2 first-author · 4 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
4 papers
Language models and text generation · 26% Vision and language · 23% Trustworthy machine learning · 23%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
pre-trained language model
0.812024
Pre-trained Language Models Do Not Help Auto-regressive Text-to-Image Generation · EMNLP 2024
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
text-to-image generation
0.812024
Pre-trained Language Models Do Not Help Auto-regressive Text-to-Image Generation · EMNLP 2024
Computer vision › Vision and language › vision-language model
contrastive vision-language model
0.712023
Perceptual Grouping in Contrastive Vision-Language Models · ICCV 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
multimodal robustness
0.712023
Robustness in Multimodal Learning under Train-Test Modality Mismatch · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.712023
Robustness in Multimodal Learning under Train-Test Modality Mismatch · ICML 2023
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › image segmentation
unsupervised segmentation
0.712023
Perceptual Grouping in Contrastive Vision-Language Models · ICCV 2023
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model
0.712023
Perceptual Grouping in Contrastive Vision-Language Models · ICCV 2023
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › zero-shot learning
zero-shot classification
0.212023
Perceptual Grouping in Contrastive Vision-Language Models · ICCV 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

multimodal instruction tuning · 0.8large-scale pretraining · 0.8autoregressive modeling · 0.8VQ-VAE · 0.8perceptual grouping · 0.7multimodal representation learning · 0.7contrastive learning · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 MM1: Methods, Analysis and Insights from Multimodal LLM Pre-training
Brandon McKinzie, Zhe Gan, Jean-Philippe Fauconnier, Sam Dodge, Bowen Zhang 0002, Philipp Dufter, Dhruti Shah, Xianzhi Du, Futang Peng, Anton Belyi, Haotian Zhang 0005, Karanjeet Singh 0003, Doug Kang, Hongyu Hè, Max Schwarzer, Tom Gunter, Xiang Kong, Aonan Zhang, Nan Du 0002, Tao Lei 0001, Sam Wiseman, Mark Lee 0003, Ruoming Pang, Peter Grasch, Alexander Toshev, Yinfei Yang
ECCV (29)1
2024 Pre-trained Language Models Do Not Help Auto-regressive Text-to-Image Generation
abstract
Recent advances in image tokenizers, such as VQ-VAE, have enabled text-to-image generation using auto-regressive methods, similar to language modeling.However, these methods have yet to leverage pre-trained language models, despite their adaptability to various downstream tasks.In this work, we explore this gap by adapting a pre-trained language model for auto-regressive text-to-image generation, and find that pre-trained language models offer limited help.We provide a two-fold explanation by analyzing tokens from each modality.First, we demonstrate that image tokens possess significantly different semantics compared to text tokens, rendering pre-trained language models no more effective in modeling them than randomly initialized ones.Second, the text tokens in the image-text datasets are too simple compared to normal language model pre-training data, which causes the catastrophic degradation of language models' capability.
Brandon McKinzie, Zhe Gan, Vaishaal Shankar, Alexander Toshev
EMNLP2
2023 Perceptual Grouping in Contrastive Vision-Language Models
abstract
Recent advances in zero-shot image recognition suggest that vision-language models learn generic visual representations with a high degree of semantic information that may be arbitrarily probed with natural language phrases. Understanding an image, however, is not just about understanding what content resides within an image, but importantly, where that content resides. In this work we examine how well vision-language models are able to understand where objects reside within an image and group together visually related parts of the imagery. We demonstrate how contemporary vision and language representation learning models based on contrastive losses and large web-based data capture limited object localization information. We propose a minimal set of modifications that results in models that uniquely learn both semantic and spatial information. We measure this performance in terms of zero-shot image recognition, unsupervised bottom-up and top-down semantic segmentations, as well as robustness analyses. We find that the resulting model achieves state-of-the-art results in terms of unsupervised segmentation, and demonstrate that the learned representations are uniquely robust to spurious correlations in datasets designed to probe the causal behavior of vision models.
Kanchana Ranasinghe, Brandon McKinzie, Sachin Ravi, Yinfei Yang, Alexander Toshev, Jonathon Shlens
ICCV2
2023 Robustness in Multimodal Learning under Train-Test Modality Mismatch
abstract
Multimodal learning is defined as learning over multiple heterogeneous input modalities such as video, audio, and text. In this work, we are concerned with understanding how models behave as the type of modalities differ between training and deployment, a situation that naturally arises in many applications of multimodal learning to hardware platforms. We present a multimodal robustness framework to provide a systematic analysis of common multimodal representation learning methods. Further, we identify robustness short-comings of these approaches and propose two intervention techniques leading to $1.5\times$-$4\times$ robustness improvements on three datasets, AudioSet, Kinetics-400 and ImageNet-Captions. Finally, we demonstrate that these interventions better utilize additional modalities, if present, to achieve competitive results of $44.2$ mAP on AudioSet 20K.
Brandon McKinzie, Vaishaal Shankar, Joseph Y. Cheng, Yinfei Yang, Jonathon Shlens, Alexander Toshev
ICML1