Privacy-Aware Document Visual Question Answering
0
🎲
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This document provides guidelines for authors to format their responses to reviews for academic papers.
- It covers aspects like response length, formatting, and structure to help authors effectively communicate with reviewers.
- The guidelines aim to ensure a consistent and professional approach to the author response process.
Plain English Explanation
The paper outlines the formatting guidelines that authors should follow when writing their responses to reviewer comments for academic papers. These guidelines help ensure the responses are clear, well-structured, and effectively communicate the authors' perspective.
The key points covered include:
-
Response Length: Authors are advised to keep their responses concise, typically around 1-2 pages long. This helps reviewers easily digest the main points.
-
Formatting: The response should be formatted using standard LaTeX conventions, such as using section headings, numbered lists, and proper citation formatting. This professional layout makes the response easy to read.
-
Structure: The response should be organized into logical sections, such as addressing major reviewer comments, providing clarifications, and outlining changes made to the paper. This structured approach helps reviewers understand the authors' thought process.
By following these guidelines, authors can craft high-quality responses that effectively address reviewer feedback and strengthen their final paper submission. The structured, concise format ensures the key points are clearly communicated to the review panel.
Technical Explanation
The document provides detailed guidelines for authors to format their responses to reviewer comments when submitting academic papers. It covers the following key aspects:
Response Length: The guidelines recommend keeping the response to 1-2 pages in length. This concise format allows reviewers to efficiently digest the authors' points without being overwhelmed by excessive text.
Formatting: The response should be formatted using standard LaTeX conventions, including:
- Organizing content into logical sections and subsections using LaTeX headings
- Formatting references and citations correctly
- Using numbered and bulleted lists appropriately
- Maintaining consistent spacing and formatting throughout
Structure: The response should be structured to address the key points raised by reviewers. Typical sections include:
- Responding to major comments or concerns
- Providing clarifications on specific aspects of the paper
- Outlining changes made to the paper in response to reviewer feedback
This structured approach helps ensure the response is easy to follow and the authors' perspective is clearly communicated to the review panel.
Critical Analysis
The guidelines provided in this document are well-designed to help authors craft effective responses to reviewer comments. The emphasis on conciseness, professional formatting, and logical organization is particularly valuable, as it ensures the response is easy to read and understand for busy reviewers.
One potential limitation is that the guidelines may not fully address the needs of authors working in highly specialized fields or dealing with particularly complex reviewer feedback. In such cases, authors may need to deviate from the standard template to effectively communicate their points.
Additionally, while the guidelines encourage authors to be clear and concise, there is a risk that overly brief responses may come across as dismissive or lacking in nuance. Authors should strive to find the right balance between conciseness and providing sufficient context and explanation.
Overall, these guidelines represent a solid foundation for authors to follow when responding to reviewer comments. By adhering to the recommendations, authors can increase the likelihood of their responses being well-received and their papers being accepted for publication.
Conclusion
The LaTeX Guidelines for Author Response provide a comprehensive set of recommendations to help authors craft professional and effective responses to reviewer comments. By following these guidelines, authors can ensure their responses are concise, well-formatted, and logically structured, making it easier for reviewers to understand and address the key points.
The guidelines cover important aspects such as response length, formatting conventions, and the overall structure of the response. By adhering to these best practices, authors can strengthen their final paper submissions and increase the chances of their work being accepted for publication.
While the guidelines may not address all possible scenarios, they represent a solid foundation for authors to build upon, allowing them to effectively communicate with reviewers and address feedback in a clear and organized manner.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🎲
0
Privacy-Aware Document Visual Question Answering
Rub`en Tito, Khanh Nguyen, Marlon Tobaben, Raouf Kerkouche, Mohamed Ali Souibgui, Kangsoo Jung, Joonas Jalko, Vincent Poulain D'Andecy, Aurelie Joseph, Lei Kang, Ernest Valveny, Antti Honkela, Mario Fritz, Dimosthenis Karatzas
Document Visual Question Answering (DocVQA) has quickly grown into a central task of document understanding. But despite the fact that documents contain sensitive or copyrighted information, none of the current DocVQA methods offers strong privacy guarantees. In this work, we explore privacy in the domain of DocVQA for the first time, highlighting privacy issues in state of the art multi-modal LLM models used for DocVQA, and explore possible solutions. Specifically, we focus on invoice processing as a realistic document understanding scenario, and propose a large scale DocVQA dataset comprising invoice documents and associated questions and answers. We employ a federated learning scheme, that reflects the real-life distribution of documents in different businesses, and we explore the use case where the data of the invoice provider is the sensitive information to be protected. We demonstrate that non-private models tend to memorise, a behaviour that can lead to exposing private information. We then evaluate baseline training schemes employing federated learning and differential privacy in this multi-modal scenario, where the sensitive information might be exposed through either or both of the two input modalities: vision (document image) or language (OCR tokens). Finally, we design attacks exploiting the memorisation effect of the model, and demonstrate their effectiveness in probing a representative DocVQA models.
Read more9/4/2024
➖
0
Federated Document Visual Question Answering: A Pilot Study
Khanh Nguyen, Dimosthenis Karatzas
An important handicap of document analysis research is that documents tend to be copyrighted or contain private information, which prohibits their open publication and the creation of centralised, large-scale document datasets. Instead, documents are scattered in private data silos, making extensive training over heterogeneous data a tedious task. In this work, we explore the use of a federated learning (FL) scheme as a way to train a shared model on decentralised private document data. We focus on the problem of Document VQA, a task particularly suited to this approach, as the type of reasoning capabilities required from the model can be quite different in diverse domains. Enabling training over heterogeneous document datasets can thus substantially enrich DocVQA models. We assemble existing DocVQA datasets from diverse domains to reflect the data heterogeneity in real-world applications. We explore the self-pretraining technique in this multi-modal setting, where the same data is used for both pretraining and finetuning, making it relevant for privacy preservation. We further propose combining self-pretraining with a Federated DocVQA training method using centralized adaptive optimization that outperforms the FedAvg baseline. With extensive experiments, we also present a multi-faceted analysis on training DocVQA models with FL, which provides insights for future research on this task. We show that our pretraining strategies can effectively learn and scale up under federated training with diverse DocVQA datasets and tuning hyperparameters is essential for practical document tasks under federation.
Read more5/24/2024
🏋️
0
Extracting Training Data from Document-Based VQA Models
Francesco Pinto, Nathalie Rauschmayr, Florian Tram`er, Philip Torr, Federico Tombari
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made remarkable progress in document-based Visual Question Answering (i.e., responding to queries about the contents of an input document provided as an image). In this work, we show these models can memorize responses for training samples and regurgitate them even when the relevant visual information has been removed. This includes Personal Identifiable Information (PII) repeated once in the training set, indicating these models could divulge memorised sensitive information and therefore pose a privacy risk. We quantitatively measure the extractability of information in controlled experiments and differentiate between cases where it arises from generalization capabilities or from memorization. We further investigate the factors that influence memorization across multiple state-of-the-art models and propose an effective heuristic countermeasure that empirically prevents the extractability of PII.
Read more7/12/2024
0
Multi-Page Document Visual Question Answering using Self-Attention Scoring Mechanism
Lei Kang, Rub`en Tito, Ernest Valveny, Dimosthenis Karatzas
Documents are 2-dimensional carriers of written communication, and as such their interpretation requires a multi-modal approach where textual and visual information are efficiently combined. Document Visual Question Answering (Document VQA), due to this multi-modal nature, has garnered significant interest from both the document understanding and natural language processing communities. The state-of-the-art single-page Document VQA methods show impressive performance, yet in multi-page scenarios, these methods struggle. They have to concatenate all pages into one large page for processing, demanding substantial GPU resources, even for evaluation. In this work, we propose a novel method and efficient training strategy for multi-page Document VQA tasks. In particular, we employ a visual-only document representation, leveraging the encoder from a document understanding model, Pix2Struct. Our approach utilizes a self-attention scoring mechanism to generate relevance scores for each document page, enabling the retrieval of pertinent pages. This adaptation allows us to extend single-page Document VQA models to multi-page scenarios without constraints on the number of pages during evaluation, all with minimal demand for GPU resources. Our extensive experiments demonstrate not only achieving state-of-the-art performance without the need for Optical Character Recognition (OCR), but also sustained performance in scenarios extending to documents of nearly 800 pages compared to a maximum of 20 pages in the MP-DocVQA dataset. Our code is publicly available at url{https://github.com/leitro/SelfAttnScoring-MPDocVQA}.
Read more5/1/2024