Paper:
Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) requires an agent to follow naturallanguage instructions, explore the given environments, and reach the desired target locations. These step-by-step navigational instructions are extremely useful in navigating new environments that the agent does not know about previously. Most recent works that study VLN observe a significant performance drop when tested on unseen environments (i.e., environments not used in training), indicating that the neural agent models are highly biased towards training environments. Although this issue is considered as one of the major challenges in VLN research, it is still under-studied and needs a clearer explanation. In this work, we design novel diagnosis experiments via environment re-splitting and feature replacement, looking into possible reasons for this environment bias. We observe that neither the language nor the underlying navigational graph, but the low-level visual appearance conveyed by ResNet features directly affects the agent model and contributes to this environment bias in results. According to this observation, we explore several kinds of semantic representations which contain less low-level visual information, hence the agent learned with these features could be better generalized to unseen testing environments. Without modifying the baseline agent model and its training method, our explored semantic features significantly decrease the performance gap between seen and unseen on multiple datasets (i.e., 8.6% to 0.2% on R2R, 23.9% to 0.1% on R4R, and 3.74 to 0.17 on CVDN) and achieve competitive unseen results to previous state-of-the-art models.

Review:
This paper has two main contributions. First, the authors perform an extensive study to understand the source of what they refer to as 'environment bias', which manifests itself as a gap in performance between environments used for training and unseen environments used for validation. The authors conclude that of the three sources of information provided to the agent (the natural language instruction, the graph structure of the environment, and the RGB image), the RGB image is the primary source of the overfitting. The second contribution is to use semantic information, compact statistics derived from (1) detected objects and (2) semantic segmentation, to replace the RGB image and provide input to the system in a way that maintains state-of-the-art performance but shrinks the performance gap between the seen and unseen data.
This paper has some pretty exhaustive treatment diagnosing the source of the agent's 'environment bias' (which, as I discuss below, I believe is more accurately referred to as 'overfitting') in Sec. 4. To me, this is this highlight of the paper, and some interesting work; the investigation of the behavior of the system is interesting and informative. It provides a framework for thinking about how to diagnose this behavior and identify its source. The authors use this rather extensive study to motivate the need for new features (semantic features) to replace the RGB image that their investigation finds is where much of this 'environment bias' is located. Unfortunately, it is here that the paper falls flat. The authors proposal methods perform nominally better on the tasks being investigated, but much of the latter portion of the paper continues to focus on the 'improvement' in the metric they use to diagnose the 'bias'. As I mention below, the metric for success on these tasks is performance on the unseen data, and, though an improvement on their 'bias' metric is good anecdotal evidence their proposed methods are doing what they think, the improvements in this metric are largely due to a nontrivial decrease in performance on the training data. Ultimately, this is not a compelling reason to prefer their method. I go into more details below about where I think some of the other portions of the paper could be improved and include suggestions for improvement.
High-level comments:
- I am uncertain that 'bias' is the right word to describe the effect under study. In my experience, environment bias (or, more generally, dataset bias) usually implies that the training and test sets (or some subset of the data) are distinct in some way, that they are drawn from different distributions. The learning system cannot identify these differences without access to the test set, resulting in poor performance on the 'unseen' data. In the scenario presented here, the environments are selected to be in the train/test/validation sets at random. As such, the behavior described here is probably more appropriately described as 'overfitting'. The shift in terminology is not an insignificant change, because using 'bias' to describe the problem incorrectly suggests that the data collection procedure is to blame, rather than a lack of data or an overparamatrized learning strategy; I imagine that more data in the training set (if it existed) could help to reduce the gap in performance the paper is concerned with. That being said, I imagine some language changes could be done to remedy this.
- Perhaps the biggest problem with the paper as written is that I am not convinced that the 'performance gap' between the seen and unseen data is a metric I should want to optimize. This metric is instructive for diagnosing which component of the model the overfitting is coming from, and Sec. 4 (devoted to a study of this effect) is an interesting study as a result. However, beyond this investigation, reducing the gap between these two is not a compelling objective; ultimately, it is the raw performance on the unseen data that matters most. The paper is written in a way that very heavily emphasizes the 'performance gap' metric, which gets in the way of its otherwise interesting discussion diagnosing the source of overfitting and some 'strong' results on the tasks of interest. The criteria should be used to motivate newer approaches, rather than the metric we should value for its adoption. This narrative challenge is the most important reason I cannot recommend this paper in its current state.
- Using semantic segmentation, rather than the RBG image, as input seems like a good idea, and the authors do a good job of motivating the use of semantics (which should show better generalization performance) than a raw image. However, the implementation in Sec. 6.3 raises a few questions. First (and perhaps least important) is that 6.3 is missing some implementation details. In this section, the authors mention that 'a multilayer perceptron is used' but do not provide any training or structure details; these details should be included in an appendix. More important is the rather significant decrease in performance on the seen data (11% absolute) when switching to the learned method. Though the performance on the unseen data does not change much, it raises some concerns about the generalizability of the learning approach they have used: in an ideal world with infinite training data, the network would perfectly accurately reproduce the ground truth results, and there should be no difference between the two. Consequently, the authors should comment on the discrepancy between the two and the limits of the learned approach, which I worry may limit its efficacy if more training data were added.
Smaller comments:
- I do not fully understand why the 'Touchdown' environment was included in Table 1, since the learned-semantic agent proposed in the paper was not evaluated. The remainder of the experiments are sufficient to convince the reader that this gap exists, and I would recommend either evaluating against the proposed technique or removing this task from the paper.
- Figure captions should be more 'self-contained'. Right now, they describe only what is shown in the figure. They should also describe what I, as a reader, should take away or learn from the figure. This is not always necessary, but in my experience improves readability, so that the reader does not need to return to the body of the text to understand.
- The use of a multilayer perceptron for the Semantic Segmentation learned features, trained from scratch, stands out as a strange choice, when there are many open source implementations for semantic segmentation exist and could be fine-tuned for this task; a complete investigation (which may be out of scope for the rebuttal period) may require evaluating performance of one of these systems.