Social media platforms are hubs for multimodal information exchange, encompassing text, images, and videos, making it challenging for machines to comprehend the information or emotions associated with interactions in online spaces. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have emerged as a promising solution to address these challenges, yet struggle with accurately interpreting human emotions and complex contents like misinformation. This paper introduces MM-Soc, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs’ understanding of multimodal social media content. MM-Soc compiles prominent multimodal datasets and incorporates a novel large-scale YouTube tagging dataset, targeting a range of tasks from misinformation detection, hate speech detection, and social context generation. Through our exhaustive evaluation on ten size-variants of four open-source MLLMs, we have identified significant performance disparities, highlighting the need for advancements in models’ social understanding capabilities. Our analysis reveals that, in a zero-shot setting, various types of MLLMs generally exhibit difficulties in handling social media tasks. However, MLLMs demonstrate performance improvements post fine-tuning, suggesting potential pathways for improvement.

Violence-provoking speech – speech that implicitly or explicitly promotes violence against the members of the targeted community, contributed to a massive surge in anti-Asian crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic. While previous works have characterized and built tools for detecting other forms of harmful speech, like fear speech and hate speech, our work takes a community-centric approach to studying anti-Asian violence-provoking speech. Using data from ~420k Twitter posts spanning a 3-year duration (January 1, 2020 to February 1, 2023), we develop a codebook to characterize anti-Asian violence-provoking speech and collect a community-crowdsourced dataset to facilitate its large-scale detection using state-of-the-art classifiers. We contrast the capabilities of natural language processing classifiers, ranging from BERT-based to LLM-based classifiers, in detecting violence-provoking speech with their capabilities to detect anti-Asian hateful speech. In contrast to prior work that has demonstrated the effectiveness of such classifiers in detecting hateful speech (F₁ = 0.89), our work shows that accurate and reliable detection of violence-provoking speech is a challenging task (F₁ = 0.69). We discuss the implications of our findings, particularly the need for proactive interventions to support Asian communities during public health crises.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) like LLaVA and GPT-4(V) enable general-purpose conversations about images with the language modality. As off-the-shelf MLLMs may have limited capabilities on images from domains like dermatology and agriculture, they must be fine-tuned to unlock domain-specific applications. The prevalent architecture of current open-source MLLMs comprises two major modules: an image-language (cross-modal) projection network and a large language model. It is desirable to understand the roles of these two modules in modeling domain-specific visual attributes to inform the design of future models and streamline the interpretability efforts on the current models. To this end, via experiments on 4 datasets and under 2 fine-tuning settings, we find that as the MLLM is fine-tuned, it indeed gains domain-specific visual capabilities, but the updates do not lead to the projection extracting relevant domain-specific visual attributes. Our results indicate that the domain-specific visual attributes are modeled by the LLM, even when only the projection is fine-tuned. Through this study, we offer a potential reinterpretation of the role of cross-modal projections in MLLM architectures.

State-of-the-art few-shot learning (FSL) methods leverage prompt-based fine-tuning to obtain remarkable results for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. While much of the prior FSL methods focus on improving downstream task performance, there is a limited understanding of the adversarial robustness of such methods. In this work, we conduct an extensive study of several state-of-the-art FSL methods to assess their robustness to adversarial perturbations. To better understand the impact of various factors towards robustness (or the lack of it), we evaluate prompt-based FSL methods against fully fine-tuned models for aspects such as the use of unlabeled data, multiple prompts, number of few-shot examples, model size and type. Our results on six GLUE tasks indicate that compared to fully fine-tuned models, vanilla FSL methods lead to a notable relative drop in task performance (i.e., are less robust) in the face of adversarial perturbations. However, using (i) unlabeled data for prompt-based FSL and (ii) multiple prompts flip the trend – the few-shot learning approaches demonstrate a lesser drop in task performance than fully fine-tuned models. We further demonstrate that increasing the number of few-shot examples and model size lead to increased adversarial robustness of vanilla FSL methods. Broadly, our work sheds light on the adversarial robustness evaluation of prompt-based FSL methods for NLU tasks.

The robustness of multimodal deep learning models to realistic changes in the input text is critical for applicability on important tasks such as text-to-image retrieval and cross-modal entailment. To measure robustness, several existing approaches edit the text data, but without leveraging the cross-modal information present in multimodal data. Such information from the visual modality, such as color, size, and shape, provides additional attributes that users can include in their inputs. Thus, we propose cross-modal attribute insertions as a realistic perturbation strategy for vision-and-language data that inserts visual attributes of the objects in the image into the corresponding text (e.g., “girl on a chair” to “little girl on a wooden chair”). Our proposed approach for cross-modal attribute insertions is modular, controllable, and task-agnostic. We find that augmenting input text using cross-modal insertions causes state-of-the-art approaches for text-to-image retrieval and cross-modal entailment to perform poorly, resulting in relative drops of ~15% in MRR and ~20% in F1 score, respectively. Crowd-sourced annotations demonstrate that cross-modal insertions lead to higher quality augmentations for multimodal data than augmentations using text-only data, and are equivalent in quality to original examples. We release the code to encourage robustness evaluations of deep vision-and-language models: https://github.com/claws-lab/multimodal-robustness-xmai

As multimodal learning finds applications in a wide variety of high-stakes societal tasks, investigating their robustness becomes important. Existing work has focused on understanding the robustness of vision-and-language models to imperceptible variations on benchmark tasks. In this work, we investigate the robustness of multimodal classifiers to cross-modal dilutions – a plausible variation. We develop a model that, given a multimodal (image + text) input, generates additional dilution text that (a) maintains relevance and topical coherence with the image and existing text, and (b) when added to the original text, leads to misclassification of the multimodal input. Via experiments on Crisis Humanitarianism and Sentiment Detection tasks, we find that the performance of task-specific fusion-based multimodal classifiers drops by 23.3% and 22.5%, respectively, in the presence of dilutions generated by our model. Metric-based comparisons with several baselines and human evaluations indicate that our dilutions show higher relevance and topical coherence, while simultaneously being more effective at demonstrating the brittleness of the multimodal classifiers. Our work aims to highlight and encourage further research on the robustness of deep multimodal models to realistic variations, especially in human-facing societal applications.

Citations have long been used to characterize the state of a scientific field and to identify influential works. However, writers use citations for different purposes, and this varied purpose influences uptake by future scholars. Unfortunately, our understanding of how scholars use and frame citations has been limited to small-scale manual citation analysis of individual papers. We perform the largest behavioral study of citations to date, analyzing how scientific works frame their contributions through different types of citations and how this framing affects the field as a whole. We introduce a new dataset of nearly 2,000 citations annotated for their function, and use it to develop a state-of-the-art classifier and label the papers of an entire field: Natural Language Processing. We then show how differences in framing affect scientific uptake and reveal the evolution of the publication venues and the field as a whole. We demonstrate that authors are sensitive to discourse structure and publication venue when citing, and that how a paper frames its work through citations is predictive of the citation count it will receive. Finally, we use changes in citation framing to show that the field of NLP is undergoing a significant increase in consensus.