user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Interpretable Counting for Visual Question Answering

Paper content:
Questions that require counting a variety of objects in images remain a major challenge in visual question answering (VQA).
The most common approaches to VQA involve either classifying answers based on fixed length representations of both the image and question or summing fractional counts estimated from each section of the image.
In contrast, we treat counting as a sequential decision process and force our model to make discrete choices of what to count.
Specifically, the model sequentially selects from detected objects and learns interactions between objects that influence subsequent selections.
A distinction of our approach is its intuitive and interpretable output, as discrete counts are automatically grounded in the image.
Furthermore, our method outperforms the state of the art architecture for VQA on multiple metrics that evaluate counting.
Visual question answering (VQA) is an important benchmark to test for context-specific reasoning over complex images.
While the field has seen substantial progress, counting-based questions have seen the least improvement .
Intuitively, counting should involve finding the number of distinct scene elements or objects that meet some criteria, see Fig. 1 for an example.
In contrast, the predominant approach to VQA involves representing the visual input with the final feature map of a convolutional neural network (CNN), attending to regions based on an encoding of the question, and classifying the answer from the attention-weighted image features BID32 BID31 Lu et al., 2016b; BID7 BID14 .
Our intuition about counting seems at odds with the effects of attention, where a weighted average obscures any notion of distinct elements.
As such, we are motivated to re-think the typical approach to counting in VQA and propose a method that embraces the discrete nature of the task.Our approach is partly inspired by recent work that represents images as a set of distinct objects, as identified by object detection , and making use of the relationships between these objects BID26 .
We experiment with counting systems that build off of the vision module used for these two works, which represents each image as a set of detected objects.
For training and evaluation, we create a new dataset, HowMany-QA.
It is taken from the countingspecific union of VQA 2.0 BID10 and Visual Genome QA (Krishna et al., 2016) .We
introduce the Interpretable Reinforcement Learning Counter (IRLC), which treats counting as a sequential decision process. We
treat learning to count as learning to enumerate the relevant objects in the scene. As
a result, IRLC not only returns a count but also the objects supporting its answer. This
output is produced through an iterative method. Each
step of this sequence has two stages: First, an object is selected to be added to the count. Second
, the model adjusts the priority given to unselected objects based on their configuration with the selected objects (Fig. 1) . We supervise
only the final count and train the decision process using reinforcement learning (RL).Additional experiments
highlight the importance of the iterative approach when using this manner of weak supervision. Furthermore, we train
the current state of the art model for VQA on HowMany-QA and find that IRLC achieves a higher accuracy and lower count error. Lastly, we compare the
Figure 1: IRLC takes as input a counting question and image. Detected objects are added
to the returned count through a sequential decision process. The above example illustrates
actual model behavior after training.grounded counts of our model to the attentional focus of the state of the art baseline to demonstrate the interpretability gained through our approach.
We present an interpretable approach to counting in visual question answering, based on learning to enumerate objects in a scene.
By using RL, we are able to train our model to make binary decisions about whether a detected object contributes to the final count.
We experiment with two additional baselines and control for variations due to visual representations and for the mechanism of visuallinguistic comparison.
Our approach achieves state of the art for each of the evaluation metrics.
In addition, our model identifies the objects that contribute to each count.
These groundings provide traction for identifying the aspects of the task that the model has failed to learn and thereby improve not only performance but also interpretability.A EXAMPLES Figure 8 : Example outputs produced by each model.
For SoftCount, objects are shaded according to the fractional count of each (0=transparent; 1=opaque).
For UpDown, we similarly shade the objects but use the attention focus to determine opacity.
For IRLC, we plot only the boxes from objects that were selected as part of the count.
At each timestep, we illustrate the unchosen boxes in pink, and shade each box according to κ t (corresponding to the probability that the box would be selected at that time step; see main text).
We also show the already-selected boxes in blue.
For each of the questions, the counting sequence terminates at t = 3, meaning that the returned count C is 3.
For each of these questions, that is the correct answer.
The example on the far right is a 'correct failure,' a case where the correct answer is returned but the counted objects are not related to the question.
These kinds of subtle failures are revealed with the grounded counts.

assistant: text: We perform counting for visual question answering; our model produces interpretable outputs by counting directly from detected objects.