Align before Fuse: Vision and Language

Representation Learning with Momentum Distillation

Junnan Li, Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Akhilesh D. Gotmare

Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, Steven C.H. Hoi
Salesforce Research
{[Link],rselvaraju,[Link],sjoty,shoi}@[Link]
arXiv:2107.07651v1 [[Link]] 16 Jul 2021

Abstract
Large-scale vision and language representation learning has shown promising
improvements on various vision-language tasks. Most existing methods employ a
transformer-based multimodal encoder to jointly model visual tokens (region-based
image features) and word tokens. Because the visual tokens and word tokens
are unaligned, it is challenging for the multimodal encoder to learn image-text
interactions. In this paper, we introduce a contrastive loss to ALign the image and
text representations BEfore Fusing (ALBEF) them through cross-modal attention,
which enables more grounded vision and language representation learning. Unlike
most existing methods, our method does not require bounding box annotations nor
high-resolution images. To improve learning from noisy web data, we propose
momentum distillation, a self-training method which learns from pseudo-targets
produced by a momentum model. We provide a theoretical analysis of ALBEF from
a mutual information maximization perspective, showing that different training
tasks can be interpreted as different ways to generate views for an image-text
pair. ALBEF achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple downstream vision-
language tasks. On image-text retrieval, ALBEF outperforms methods that are
pre-trained on orders of magnitude larger datasets. On VQA and NLVR2 , ALBEF
achieves absolute improvements of 2.37% and 3.84% compared to the state-of-
the-art, while enjoying faster inference speed. Code and models are available at
[Link]

1 Introduction
Vision-and-Language Pre-training (VLP) aims to learn multimodal representations from large-scale
image-text pairs that can improve downstream Vision-and-Language (V+L) tasks. Most existing VLP
methods (e.g. LXMERT [1], UNITER [2], OSCAR [3]) rely on pre-trained object detectors to extract
region-based image features, and employ a multimodal encoder to fuse the image features with word
tokens. The multimodal encoder is trained to solve tasks that require joint understanding of image
and text, such as masked language modeling (MLM) and image-text matching (ITM).
While effective, this VLP framework suffers from several key limitations: (1) The image features and
the word token embeddings reside in their own spaces, which makes it challenging for the multimodal
encoder to learn to model their interactions; (2) The object detector is both annotation-expensive
and compute-expensive, because it requires bounding box annotations during pre-training, and high-
resolution (e.g. 600×1000) images during inference; (3) The widely used image-text datasets [4, 5]
are collected from the web and are inherently noisy, and existing pre-training objectives such as
MLM may overfit to the noisy text and degrade the model’s generalization performance.
We propose ALign BEfore Fuse (ALBEF), a new VLP framework to address these limitations. We
first encode the image and text independently with a detector-free image encoder and a text encoder.
Then we use a multimodal encoder to fuse the image features with the text features through cross-
modal attention. We introduce an intermediate image-text contrastive (ITC) loss on representations
from the unimodal encoders, which serves three purposes: (1) it aligns the image features and the
text features, making it easier for the multimodal encoder to perform cross-modal learning; (2) it

Preprint. Under review.

improves the unimodal encoders to better understand the semantic meaning of images and texts; (3)
it learns a common low-dimensional space to embed images and texts, which enables the image-text
matching objective to find more informative samples through our contrastive hard negative mining.
To improve learning under noisy supervision, we propose Momentum Distillation (MoD), a simple
method which enables the model to leverage a larger uncurated web dataset. During training, we
keep a momentum version of the model by taking the moving-average of its parameters, and use the
momentum model to generate pseudo-targets as additional supervision. With MoD, the model is not
penalized for producing other reasonable outputs that are different from the web annotation. We show
that MoD not only improves pre-training, but also downstream tasks with clean annotations.
We provide theoretical justifications on ALBEF from the perspective of mutual information maximiza-
tion. Specifically, we show that ITC and MLM maximize a lower bound on the mutual information
between different views of an image-text pair, where the views are generated by taking partial
information from each pair. From this perspective, our momentum distillation can be interpreted as
generating new views with semantically similar samples. Therefore, ALBEF learns vision-language
representations that are invariant to semantic-preserving transformations.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of ALBEF on various downstream V+L tasks including image-text
retrieval, visual question answering, visual reasoning, visual entailment, and weakly-supervised visual
grounding. ALBEF achieves substantial improvements over existing state-of-the-art methods. On
image-text retrieval, it outperforms methods that are pre-trained on orders of magnitude larger datasets
(CLIP [6] and ALIGN [7]). On VQA and NLVR2 , it achieves absolute improvements of 2.37% and
3.84% compared to the state-of-the-art method VILLA [8], while enjoying much faster inference
speed. We also provide quantitative and qualitative analysis on ALBEF using Grad-CAM [9], which
reveals its ability to perform accurate object, attribute and relationship grounding implicitly.

2 Related Work
2.1 Vision-Language Representation Learning
Most existing work on vision-language representation learning fall into two categories. The first
category focuses on modelling the interactions between image and text features with transformer-
based multimodal encoders [10, 11, 12, 13, 1, 14, 15, 2, 3, 16, 8, 17, 18]. Methods in this category
achieve superior performance on downstream V+L tasks that require complex reasoning over image
and text (e.g. NLVR2 [19], VQA [20]), but most of them require high-resolution input images and
pre-trained object detectors. A recent method [21] improves inference speed by removing the object
detector, but results in lower performance. The second category focuses on learning separate unimodal
encoders for image and text [22, 23, 6, 7]. The recent CLIP [6] and ALIGN [7] perform pre-training
on massive noisy web data using a contrastive loss, one of the most effective loss for representation
learning [24, 25]. They achieve remarkable performance on image-text retrieval tasks, but lack the
ability to model more complex interactions between image and text for other V+L tasks [21].
ALBEF unifies the two categories, leading to strong unimodal and multimodal representations with
superior performance on both retrieval and reasoning tasks. Furthermore, ALBEF does not require
object detectors, a major computation bottleneck for many existing methods [1, 2, 3, 8, 17].
2.2 Knowledge Distillation
Knowledge distillation [26] aims to improve a student model’s performance by distilling knowledge
from a teacher model, usually through matching the student’s prediction with the teacher’s. While
most methods focus on distilling knowledge from a pre-trained teacher model [26, 27, 28, 29, 30],
online distillation [31, 32] simultaneously trains multiple models and use their ensemble as the
teacher. Our momentum distillation can be interpreted as a form of online self-distillation, where a
temporal ensemble of the student model is used as the teacher. Similar ideas have been explored in
semi-supervised learning [33], label noise learning [34], and very recently in contrastive learning [35].
Different from existing studies, we theoretically and experimentally show that momentum distillation
is a generic learning algorithm that can improve the model’s performance on many V+L tasks.

3 ALBEF Pre-training
In this section, we first introduce the model architecture (Section 3.1). Then we delineate the pre-
training objectives (Section 3.2), followed by the proposed momentum distillation (Section 3.3).
Lastly we describe the pre-training datasets (Section 3.4) and implementation details (Section 3.5).

2
 [CLS]
ITM MLM embedding
hard multimodal momentum
negatives Feed forward encoder update
momentum
Cross Attention ×6 distillation
Self Attention

image
text Momentum
encoder ... encoder Model
Feed forward negatives Feed forward
12× ×6
Self Attention Image-Text Self Attention
Contrastive Loss
image input text input

Figure 1: Illustration of ALBEF. It consists of an image encoder, a text encoder, and a multimodal encoder.
We propose an image-text contrastive loss to align the unimodal representations of an image-text pair before
fusion. An image-text matching loss (using in-batch hard negatives mined through contrastive similarity) and a
masked-language-modeling loss are applied to learn multimodal interactions between image and text. In order to
improve learning with noisy data, we generate pseudo-targets using the momentum model (a moving-average
version of the base model) as additional supervision during training.

3.1 Model Architecture

As illustrated in Figure 1, ALBEF contains an image encoder, a text encoder, and a multimodal
encoder. We use a 12-layer visual transformer ViT-B/16 [36] as the image encoder, and initialize it
with weights pre-trained on ImageNet-1k from [29]. An input image I is encoded into a sequence of
embeddings: {v cls , v 1 , ..., v N }, where vcls is the embedding of the [CLS] token. We use a 6-layer
transformer [37] for both the text encoder and the multimodal encoder. The text encoder is initialized
using the first 6 layers of the BERTbase [38] model, and the multimodal encoder is initialized using
the last 6 layers of the BERTbase . The text encoder transforms an input text T into a sequence of
embeddings {wcls , w1 , ..., wN }, which is fed to the multimodal encoder. The image features are
fused with the text features through cross attention at each layer of the multimodal encoder.

3.2 Pre-training Objectives

We pre-train ALBEF with three objectives: image-text contrastive learning (ITC) on the unimodal
encoders, masked language modeling (MLM) and image-text matching (ITM) on the multimodal
encoder. We improve ITM with online contrastive hard negative mining.
Image-Text Contrastive Learning aims to learn better unimodal representations before fusion. It
learns a similarity function s = gv (v cls )> gw (wcls ), such that parallel image-text pairs have higher
similarity scores. gv and gw are linear transformations that map the [CLS] embeddings to normalized
lower-dimensional (256-d) representations. Inspired by MoCo [24], we maintain two queues to
store the most recent M image-text representations from the momentum unimodal encoders. The
normalized features from the momentum encoders are denoted as gv0 (v 0cls ) and gw 0
(w0cls ). We define
> 0 0 > 0 0
s(I, T ) = gv (v cls ) gw (wcls ) and s(T, I) = gw (wcls ) gv (v cls ).
For each image and text, we calculate the softmax-normalized image-to-text and text-to-image
similarity as:
exp(s(I, Tm )/τ ) exp(s(T, Im )/τ )
pi2t
m (I) = PM , pt2i
m (T ) = PM (1)
m=1 exp(s(I, Tm )/τ ) m=1 exp(s(T, Im )/τ )

where τ is a learnable temperature parameter. Let y i2t (I) and y t2i (T ) denote the ground-truth
one-hot similarity, where negative pairs have a probability of 0 and the positive pair has a probability
of 1. The image-text contrastive loss is defined as the cross-entropy H between p and y:
1
Litc = E(I,T )∼D H(pi2t (I), y i2t (I)) + H(pt2i (T ), y t2i (T ))
 
(2)
2

3
“polar bear in the [MASK]” “a man [MASK] along a road in front of “a [MASK] waterfall in the deep woods”
GT: wild nature in summer”
GT: standing GT: remote
Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. zoo 1. walks 1. small
2. pool 2. walking 2. beautiful
3. water 3. runs 3. little
4. pond 4. running 4. secret
5. wild 5. goes 5. secluded

GT: breakdown of the car on the road GT: the harbor a small village
Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. young woman get out of the car near the road 1. the harbour with boats and houses
2. a woman inspects her damaged car under a tree 2. replica of the sailing ship in the harbour
3. a woman looking into a car after locking her keys 3. ships in the harbor of the town
inside 4. the harbor a small village
4. young woman with a broken car calling for help 5. boats lined up alongside the geographical
5. breakdown of the car on the road feature category in the village

Figure 2: Examples of the pseudo-targets for MLM (1st row) and ITC (2nd row). The pseudo-targets can capture
visual concepts that are not described by the ground-truth text (e.g. “beautiful waterfall”, “young woman”).

Masked Language Modeling utilizes both the image and the contextual text to predict the masked
words. We randomly mask out the input tokens with a probability of 15% and replace them with the
special token [MASK]1 . Let T̂ denote a masked text, and pmsk (I, T̂ ) denote the model’s predicted
probability for a masked token. MLM minimizes a cross-entropy loss:
Lmlm = E(I,T̂ )∼D H(pmsk (I, T̂ ), y msk ) (3)
msk
where y is a one-hot vocabulary distribution where the ground-truth token has a probability of 1.
Image-Text Matching predicts whether a pair of image and text is positive (matched) or negative
(not matched). We use the multimodal encoder’s output embedding of the [CLS] token as the joint
representation of the image-text pair, and append a fully-connected (FC) layer followed by softmax
to predict a two-class probability pitm . The ITM loss is:
Litm = E(I,T )∼D H(pitm (I, T ), y itm ) (4)
itm
where y is a 2-dimensional one-hot vector representing the ground-truth label.
We propose a strategy to sample hard negatives for the ITM task with zero computational overhead.
A negative image-text pair is hard if they share similar semantics but differ in fine-grained details.
We use the contrastive similarity from Equation 1 to find in-batch hard negatives. For each image in a
mini-batch, we sample one negative text from the same batch following the contrastive similarity
distribution, where texts that are more similar to the image have a higher chance to be sampled.
Likewise, we also sample one hard negative image for each text.
The full pre-training objective of ALBEF is:
L = Litc + Lmlm + Litm (5)

3.3 Momentum Distillation

The image-text pairs used for pre-training are mostly collected from the web and they tend to be
noisy. Positive pairs are usually weakly-correlated: the text may contain words that are unrelated
to the image, or the image may contain entities that are not described in the text. For ITC learning,
negative texts for an image may also match the image’s content. For MLM, there may exist other
words different from the annotation that describes the image equally well (or better). However, the
one-hot labels for ITC and MLM penalize all negative predictions regardless of their correctness.
To address this, we propose to learn from pseudo-targets generated by the momentum model. The
momentum model is a continuously-evolving teacher which consists of exponential-moving-average
versions of the unimodal and multimodal encoders. During training, we train the base model
such that its predictions match the ones from the momentum model. Specifically, for ITC, we
first compute the image-text similarity using features from the momentum unimodal encoders as
s0 (I, T ) = gv0 (v 0cls )> gw
0
(w0cls ) and s0 (T, I) = gw
0
(wcls )> gv0 (v 0cls ). Then we compute soft pseudo-
i2t t2i 0
targets q and q by replacing s with s in Equation 1. The ITCMoD loss is defined as:
α
Lmod E(I,T )∼D KL(pi2t (I), q i2t (I)) + KL(pt2i (T ), q t2i (T ))
 
itc = (1 − α)Litc + (6)
2
1
following BERT, the replacements are 10% random tokens, 10% unchanged, and 80% [MASK]

4
Similarly, for MLM, let q msk (I, T̂ ) denote the momentum model’s prediction probability for the
masked token, the MLMMoD loss is:
Lmod
mlm = (1 − α)Lmlm + αE(I,T̂ )∼D KL(p
msk
(I, T̂ ), q msk (I, T̂ )) (7)
In Figure 2, we show examples of the top-5 candidates from the pseudo-targets, which effectively
capture relevant words/texts for an image. More examples can be found in Appendix.
We also apply MoD to the downstream tasks. The final loss for each task is a weighted combination of
the original task’s loss and the KL-divergence between the model’s prediction and the pseudo-targets.
For simplicity, we set the weight α = 0.4 for all pre-training and downstream tasks.

3.4 Pre-training Datasets

Following UNITER [2], we construct our pre-training data using two web datasets (Conceptual
Captions [4], SBU Captions [5]) and two in-domain datasets (COCO [39] and Visual Genome [40]).
The total number of unique images is 4.0M, and the number of image-text pairs is 5.1M. To show
that our method is scalable with larger-scale web data, we also include the much noisier Conceptual
12M dataset [41], increasing the total number of images to 14.1M 2 . Details are in Appendix.

3.5 Implementation Details

Our model consists of a BERTbase with 123.7M parameters and a ViT-B/16 with 85.8M parameters.
We pre-train the model for 30 epochs using a batch size of 512 on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs. We use the
AdamW [42] optimizer with a weight decay of 0.02. The learning rate is warmed-up to 1e−4 in the
first 1000 iterations, and decayed to 1e−5 following a cosine schedule. During pre-training, we take
random image crops of resolution 256 × 256 as input, and also apply RandAugment3 [43]. During
fine-tuning, we increase the image resolution to 384 × 384 and interpolate the positional encoding of
image patches following [36]. The momentum parameter for updating the momentum model is set as
0.995, and the size of the queue used for image-text contrastive learning is set as 65,536. We linearly
ramp-up the distillation weight α from 0 to 0.4 within the 1st epoch.

4 A Mutual Information Maximization Perspective

In this section, we provide an alternative perspective of ALBEF and show that it maximizes a lower
bound on the mutual information (MI) between different “views” of an image-text pair. ITC, MLM,
and MoD can be interpreted as different ways to generate the views.
Formally, we define two random variables a and b as two different views of a data point. In self-
supervised learning [24, 25, 44], a and b are two augmentations of the same image. In vision-language
representation learning, we consider a and b as different variations of an image-text pair that capture
its semantic meaning. We aim to learn representations invariant to the change of view. This can
be achieved by maximizing the MI between a and b. In practice, we maximize a lower bound on
MI(a, b) by minimizing the InfoNCE loss [45] defined as:
" #
exp(s(a, b))
LNCE = −Ep(a,b) log P (8)
b̂∈B̂ exp(s(a, b̂))

where s(a, b) is a scoring function (e.g., a dot product between two representations), and B̂ contains
the positive sample b and |B̂| − 1 negative samples drawn from a proposal distribution.
Our ITC loss with one-hot labels (Equation 2) can be re-written as:
1  exp(s(I, T )/τ ) exp(s(T, I)/τ ) 
Litc = − Ep(I,T ) log PM + log PM (9)
2 m=1 exp(s(I, Tm )/τ ) m=1 exp(s(T, Im )/τ )

Minimizing Litc can be seen as maximizing a symmetric version of InfoNCE. Hence, ITC considers
the two individual modalities (i.e., I and T ) as the two views of an image-text pair, and trains the
unimodal encoders to maximize the MI between the image and text views for the positive pairs.
2
some urls provided by the web datasets have become invalid
3
we remove color changes from RandAugment because the text often contains color information

5
As shown in [46], we can also interpret MLM as maximizing the MI between a masked word token
and its masked context (i.e. image + masked text). Specifically, we can re-write the MLM loss with
one-hot labels (Equation 3) as
 exp(ψ(y msk )> f (I, T̂ )) 
Lmlm = −Ep(I,T̂ ) log P (10)
>
y∈V exp(ψ(y) f (I, T̂ ))

where ψ(y) : V → Rd is a lookup function in the multimodal encoder’s output layer that maps a
word token y into a vector and V is the full vocabulary set, and f (I, T̂ ) is a function that returns the
final hidden state of the multimodal encoder corresponding to the masked context. Hence, MLM
considers the two views of an image-text pair to be: (1) a randomly selected word token, and (2) the
image + the contextual text with that word masked.
Both ITC and MLM generate views by taking partial information from an image-text pair, through
either modality separation or word masking. Our momentum distillation can be considered as
generating alternative views from the entire proposal distribution. Take ITCMoD in Equation 6 as an
example, minimizing KL(pi2t (I), q i2t (I)) is equivalent to minimizing the following objective:
X
i2t
X exp(s0 (I, Tm )/τ ) exp(s(I, Tm )/τ )
− qm (I) log pi2t
m (I) = − PM log PM (11)
0
m m m=1 exp(s (I, Tm )/τ ) m=1 exp(s(I, Tm )/τ )
It maximizes MI(I, Tm ) for texts that share similar semantic meaning with the image I because those
i2t
texts would have larger qm (I). Similarly, ITCMoD also maximizes MI(Im , T ) for images that are
similar to T . We can follow the same method to show that MLMMoD generates alternative views
y 0 ∈ V for the masked word y msk , and maximizes the MI between y 0 and (I, T̂ ). Therefore, our
momentum distillation can be considered as performing data augmentation to the original views. The
momentum model generates a diverse set of views that are absent in the original image-text pairs, and
encourages the base model to learn representations that capture view-invariant semantic information.

5 Downstream V+L Tasks

We adapt the pre-trained model to five downstream V+L tasks. We introduce each task and our
fine-tuning strategy below. Details of the datasets and fine-tuning hyperparameters are in Appendix.
Image-Text Retrieval contains two subtasks: image-to-text retrieval (TR) and text-to-image retrieval
(IR). We evaluate ALBEF on the Flickr30K [47] and COCO benchmarks, and fine-tune the pre-
trained model using the training samples from each dataset. For zero-shot retrieval on Flickr30K,
we evaluate with the model fine-tuned on COCO. During fine-tuning, we jointly optimize the ITC
loss (Equation 2) and the ITM loss (Equation 4). ITC learns an image-text scoring function based
on similarity of unimodal features, whereas ITM models the fine-grained interaction between image
and text to predict a matching score. Since the downstream datasets contain multiple texts for each
image, we change the ground-truth label of ITC to consider multiple positives in the queue, where
each positive has a ground-truth probability of 1/#positives. During inference, we first compute the
feature similarity score sitc for all image-text pairs. Then we take the top-k candidates and calculate
their ITM score sitm for ranking. Because k can be set to be very small, our inference speed is much
faster than methods that require computing the ITM score for all image-text pairs [2, 3, 8].
Visual Entailment (SNLI-VE [48]) is a fine-grained visual reasoning task to predict whether the rela-
tionship between an image and a text is entailment, neutral, or contradictory. We follow UNITER [2]
and consider VE as a three-way classification problem, and predict the class probabilities using a
multi-layer perceptron (MLP) on the multimodal encoder’s representation of the [CLS] token.
Visual Question Answering (VQA [49]) requires the model to predict an answer given an image
and a question. Different from existing methods that formulate VQA as a multi-answer classification
problem [50, 2], we consider VQA as an answer generation problem, similar to [51]. Specifically, we
use a 6-layer transformer decoder to generate the answer. As shown in Figure 3a, the auto-regressive
answer decoder receives the multimodal embeddings through cross attention, and a start-of-sequence
token ([CLS]) is used as the decoder’s initial input token. Likewise, an end-of-sequence token
([SEP]) is appended to the end of decoder outputs which indicates the completion of generation.
The answer decoder is initialized using the pre-trained weights from the multimodal encoder, and
finetuned with a conditional language-modeling loss. For a fair comparison with existing methods,
we constrain the decoder to only generate from the 3,192 candidate answers [52] during inference.

6
 cross-attention input
share all parameters Image Multimodal MLP
image #2 Encoder Block
share cross-attention layer
×6
Image Multimodal Answer Image Multimodal
Encoder image #1 Encoder Block Multimodal
Encoder Decoder
Encoder
image [CLS]
Text Encoder Text Encoder

question text
(a) VQA (b) NLVR!
Figure 3: The model architecture for VQA and NLVR2 . For VQA, we append an auto-regressive decoder to
generate the answer given the image-question embeddings. For NLVR2 , we replicate the transformer block
within each layer of multimodal encoder to enable reasoning over two images.

Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2 [19]) requires the model to predict whether a text
describes a pair of images. We extend our multimodal encoder to enable reasoning over two images.
As shown in Figure 3b, each layer of the multimodal encoder is replicated to have two consecutive
transformer blocks, where each block contains a self-attention layer, a cross-attention layer, and a
feed-forward layer (see Figure 1). The two blocks within each layer are initialized using the same
pre-trained weights, and the two cross-attention layers share the same linear projection weights for the
keys and values. During training, the two blocks receive two sets of image embeddings for the image
pair. We append a MLP classifier on the multimodal encoder’s [CLS] representation for prediction.
For NLVR2 , we perform an additional pre-training step to prepare the new multimodal encoder for
encoding an image-pair. We design a text-assignment (TA) task as follows: given a pair of images and
a text, the model needs to assign the text to either the first image, the second image, or none of them.
We consider it as a three-way classification problem, and use a FC layer on the [CLS] representation
to predict the assignment. We pre-train with TA for only 1 epoch using the 4M images (Section 3.4).
Visual Grounding aims to localize the region in an image that corresponds to a specific textual
description. We study the weakly-supervised setting, where no bounding box annotations are available.
We perform experiments on the RefCOCO+ [53] dataset, and fine-tune the model using only image-
text supervision following the same strategy as image-text retrieval. During inference, we extend
Grad-CAM [9] to acquire heatmaps, and use them to rank the detected proposals provided by [50].

6 Experiments
6.1 Evaluation on the Proposed Methods
First, we evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed methods (i.e. image-text contrastive learning,
contrastive hard negative mining, and momentum distillation). Table 1 shows the performance of
the downstream tasks with different variants of our method. Compared to the baseline pre-training
tasks (MLM+ITM), adding ITC substantially improves the pre-trained model’s performance across
all tasks. The proposed hard negative mining improves ITM by finding more informative training
samples. Furthermore, adding momentum distillation improves learning for both ITC (row 4), MLM
(row 5), and on all downstream tasks (row 6). In the last row, we show that ALBEF can effectively
leverage more noisy web data to improve the pre-training performance.

#Pre-train TR IR SNLI-VE NLVR2 VQA

Training tasks
Images (flickr test) (test) (test-P) (test-dev)
MLM + ITM 93.96 88.55 77.06 77.51 71.40
ITC + MLM + ITM 96.55 91.69 79.15 79.88 73.29
ITC + MLM + ITMhard 97.01 92.16 79.77 80.35 73.81
4M
ITCMoD + MLM + ITMhard 97.33 92.43 79.99 80.34 74.06
Full (ITCMoD + MLMMoD + ITMhard ) 97.47 92.58 80.12 80.44 74.42
ALBEF (Full + MoDDownstream ) 97.83 92.65 80.30 80.50 74.54
14M ALBEF 98.70 94.07 80.91 83.14 75.84

Table 1: Evaluation of the proposed methods on four downstream V+L tasks. For text-retrieval (TR) and
image-retrieval (IR), we report the average of R@1, R@5 and R@10. ITC: image-text contrastive learning.
MLM: masked language modeling. ITMhard : image-text matching with contrastive hard negative mining. MoD:
momentum distillation. MoDDownstream : momentum distillation on downstream tasks.

7
 # Pre-train Flickr30K (1K test set) MSCOCO (5K test set)
Method
Images TR IR TR IR
R@1 R@5 R@10 R@1 R@5 R@10 R@1 R@5 R@10 R@1 R@5 R@10
UNITER 4M 87.3 98.0 99.2 75.6 94.1 96.8 65.7 88.6 93.8 52.9 79.9 88.0
VILLA 4M 87.9 97.5 98.8 76.3 94.2 96.8 - - - - - -
OSCAR 4M - - - - - - 70.0 91.1 95.5 54.0 80.8 88.5
ALIGN 1.2B 95.3 99.8 100.0 84.9 97.4 98.6 77.0 93.5 96.9 59.9 83.3 89.8
ALBEF 4M 94.3 99.4 99.8 82.8 96.7 98.4 73.1 91.4 96.0 56.8 81.5 89.2
ALBEF 14M 95.9 99.8 100.0 85.6 97.5 98.9 77.6 94.3 97.2 60.7 84.3 90.5

Table 2: Fine-tuned image-text retrieval results on Flickr30K and COCO datasets.

# Pre-train Flickr30K (1K test set)

Method
Images TR IR
R@1 R@5 R@10 R@1 R@5 R@10
UNITER [2] 4M 83.6 95.7 97.7 68.7 89.2 93.9
CLIP [6] 400M 88.0 98.7 99.4 68.7 90.6 95.2
ALIGN [7] 1.2B 88.6 98.7 99.7 75.7 93.8 96.8
ALBEF 4M 90.5 98.8 99.7 76.8 93.7 96.7
ALBEF 14M 94.1 99.5 99.7 82.8 96.3 98.1
Table 3: Zero-shot image-text retrieval results on Flickr30K.

VQA NLVR2 SNLI-VE

Method
test-dev test-std dev test-P val test
VisualBERT [13] 70.80 71.00 67.40 67.00 - -
VL-BERT [10] 71.16 - - - - -
LXMERT [1] 72.42 72.54 74.90 74.50 - -
12-in-1 [12] 73.15 - - 78.87 - 76.95
UNITER [2] 72.70 72.91 77.18 77.85 78.59 78.28
VL-BART/T5 [51] - 71.3 - 73.6 - -
ViLT [21] 70.94 - 75.24 76.21 - -
OSCAR [3] 73.16 73.44 78.07 78.36 - -
VILLA [8] 73.59 73.67 78.39 79.30 79.47 79.03
ALBEF (4M) 74.54 74.70 80.24 80.50 80.14 80.30
ALBEF (14M) 75.84 76.04 82.55 83.14 80.80 80.91
Table 4: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on downstream vision-language tasks.
6.2 Evaluation on Image-Text Retrieval
Table 2 and Table 3 report results on fine-tuned and zero-shot image-text retrieval, respectively. Our
ALBEF achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming CLIP [6] and ALIGN [7] which are
trained on orders of magnitude larger datasets. Given the considerable amount of improvement of
ALBEF when the number of training images increases from 4M to 14M, we hypothesize that it has
potential to further grow by training on larger-scale web image-text pairs.
6.3 Evaluation on VQA, NLVR, and VE
Table 4 reports the comparison with existing methods on other V+L understanding tasks. With 4M
pre-training images, ALBEF already achieves state-of-the-art performance. With 14M pre-training
images, ALBEF substantially outperforms existing methods, including methods that additionally
use object tags [3] or adversarial data augmentation [8]. Compared to VILLA [8], ALBEF achieves
absolute improvements of 2.37% on VQA test-std, 3.84% on NLVR2 test-P, and 1.88% on SNLI-VE
test. Because ALBEF is detector-free and requires lower resolution images, it also enjoys much faster
inference speed compared to most existing methods (>10 times faster than VILLA on NLVR2 ).
6.4 Weakly-supervised Visual Grounding
Table 5 shows the results on RefCOCO+, where ALBEF substantially outperforms existing meth-
ods [54, 55] (which use weaker text embeddings). The ALBEFitc variant computes Grad-CAM
visualizations on the self-attention maps in the last layer of the image encoder, where the gradients are
acquired by maximizing the image-text similarity sitc . The ALBEFitm variant computes Grad-CAM
on the cross-attention maps in the 3rd layer of the multimodal encoder (which is a layer specialized
in grounding), where the gradients are acquired by maximizing the image-text matching score sitm .
Figure 4 provides a few visualizations. More analysis is in Appendix.

8
 “man with head down” “girl with black tank” “green shirt”
Method Val TestA TestB
ARN [54] 32.78 34.35 32.13
CCL [55] 34.29 36.91 33.56
ALBEFitc 51.58 60.09 40.19
ALBEFitm 58.46 65.89 46.25
Table 5: Weakly-supervised visual Figure 4: Grad-CAM visualization on the cross-attention maps in
grounding on RefCOCO+ [53] dataset. the 3rd layer of the multimodal encoder.
Q: is this rice noodle soup? Q: what is to the right of Q: what is the man doing in Q: what does the truck on
A: yes the soup? A: chopsticks the street? A: walking the left sell? A: ice cream

Figure 5: Grad-CAM visualizations on the cross-attention maps of the multimodal encoder for the VQA model.
“a little girl holding a kitten next to a blue fence”

“girl” “holding” “kitten” “next” “blue”

Figure 6: Grad-CAM visualizations on the cross-attention maps corresponding to individual words.
We provide the Grad-CAM visualizations for VQA in Figure 5. As can be seen in Appendix, the
Grad-CAM visualizations from ALBEF are highly correlated with where humans would look when
making decisions. In Figure 6, we show per-word visualizations for COCO. Notice how our model
not only grounds objects, but also their attributes and relationships.
6.5 Ablation Study
w/ hard negs w/o hard negs
Table 6 studies the effect of vari- Flickr30K sitc k = 16 k = 128 k = 256 k = 128
ous design choices on image-text TR 97.30 98.60 98.57 98.57 98.22 (−0.35)
retrieval. Since we use sitc to filter IR 90.95 93.64 93.99 93.95 93.68 (−0.31)
top-k candidates during inference,
we vary k and report its effect. In Table 6: Ablation study on fine-tuned image-text retrieval. The av-
general, the ranking result acquired erage recall on the test set is reported. We use sitc to filter top-k
by sitm is not sensitive to changes candidates and calculate their sitm score for ranking.
in k. We also validate the effect of hard negative mining in the last column.
Table 7 studies the effect of text- w/ TA w/o TA
assignment (TA) pre-training and NLVR2 share all share CA no share share all share CA no share
parameter sharing on NLVR2 . We
dev 82.13 82.55 81.93 80.52 80.28 77.84
examine three strategies: (1) the test-P 82.36 83.14 82.85 81.29 80.45 77.58
two mutimodal blocks share all
2
parameters, (2) only the cross- Table 7: Ablation study on NLVR .
attention (CA) layers are shared, (3) no sharing. Without TA, sharing the entire block has better
performance. With TA to pre-train the model for image-pair, sharing CA leads to the best performance.

7 Conclusion and Social Impacts

This paper proposes ALBEF, a new framework for vision-language representation learning. ALBEF
first aligns the unimodal image representation and text representation before fusing them with a
multimodal encoder. We theoretically and experimentally verify the effectiveness of the proposed
image-text contrastive learning and momentum distillation. Compared to existing methods, ALBEF
offers better performance and faster inference speed on multiple downstream V+L tasks.
While our paper shows promising results on vision-language representation learning, additional
analysis on the data and the model is necessary before deploying it in practice, because web data may
contain unintended private information, unsuitable images, or harmful texts, and only optimizing
accuracy may have unwanted social implications.

9
References
[1] Tan, H., M. Bansal. LXMERT: learning cross-modality encoder representations from transform-
ers. In K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, X. Wan, eds., EMNLP, pages 5099–5110. 2019.
[2] Chen, Y., L. Li, L. Yu, et al. UNITER: universal image-text representation learning. In ECCV,
vol. 12375, pages 104–120. 2020.
[3] Li, X., X. Yin, C. Li, et al. Oscar: Object-semantics aligned pre-training for vision-language
tasks. In ECCV, pages 121–137. 2020.
[4] Sharma, P., N. Ding, S. Goodman, et al. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image
alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In I. Gurevych, Y. Miyao, eds., ACL, pages
2556–2565. 2018.
[5] Ordonez, V., G. Kulkarni, T. L. Berg. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned
photographs. In J. Shawe-Taylor, R. S. Zemel, P. L. Bartlett, F. C. N. Pereira, K. Q. Weinberger,
eds., NIPS, pages 1143–1151. 2011.
[6] Radford, A., J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural
language supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00020, 2021.
[7] Jia, C., Y. Yang, Y. Xia, et al. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning
with noisy text supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05918, 2021.
[8] Gan, Z., Y. Chen, L. Li, et al. Large-scale adversarial training for vision-and-language represen-
tation learning. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin, eds., NeurIPS.
2020.
[9] Selvaraju, R. R., M. Cogswell, A. Das, et al. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks
via gradient-based localization. In ICCV, pages 618–626. 2017.
[10] Su, W., X. Zhu, Y. Cao, et al. Vl-bert: Pre-training of generic visual-linguistic representations.
In ICLR. 2020.
[11] Lu, J., D. Batra, D. Parikh, et al. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations
for vision-and-language tasks. In H. M. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d’Alché-Buc,
E. B. Fox, R. Garnett, eds., NeurIPS, pages 13–23. 2019.
[12] Lu, J., V. Goswami, M. Rohrbach, et al. 12-in-1: Multi-task vision and language representation
learning. In CVPR, pages 10434–10443. 2020.
[13] Li, L. H., M. Yatskar, D. Yin, et al. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and
language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03557, abs/1908.03557, 2019.
[14] Qi, D., L. Su, J. Song, et al. Imagebert: Cross-modal pre-training with large-scale weak-
supervised image-text data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07966, 2020.
[15] Li, G., N. Duan, Y. Fang, et al. Unicoder-vl: A universal encoder for vision and language by
cross-modal pre-training. In AAAI, pages 11336–11344. 2020.
[16] Yu, F., J. Tang, W. Yin, et al. Ernie-vil: Knowledge enhanced vision-language representations
through scene graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16934, 2020.
[17] Zhang, P., X. Li, X. Hu, et al. Vinvl: Making visual representations matter in vision-language
models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00529, 2021.
[18] Huang, Z., Z. Zeng, Y. Huang, et al. Seeing out of the box: End-to-end pre-training for
vision-language representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03135, 2021.
[19] Suhr, A., S. Zhou, A. Zhang, et al. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in
photographs. In A. Korhonen, D. R. Traum, L. Màrquez, eds., ACL, pages 6418–6428. 2019.
[20] Antol, S., A. Agrawal, J. Lu, et al. VQA: visual question answering. In ICCV, pages 2425–2433.
2015.
[21] Kim, W., B. Son, I. Kim. Vilt: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region
supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.03334, 2021.
[22] Faghri, F., D. J. Fleet, J. R. Kiros, et al. VSE++: improving visual-semantic embeddings with
hard negatives. In BMVC, page 12. 2018.
[23] Li, K., Y. Zhang, K. Li, et al. Visual semantic reasoning for image-text matching. In ICCV,
pages 4653–4661. 2019.

10
[24] He, K., H. Fan, Y. Wu, et al. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning.
In CVPR. 2020.
[25] Chen, T., S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, et al. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual
representations. In ICML. 2020.
[26] Hinton, G., O. Vinyals, J. Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1503.02531, 2015.
[27] Zagoruyko, S., N. Komodakis. Paying more attention to attention: Improving the performance
of convolutional neural networks via attention transfer. In ICLR. 2017.
[28] Furlanello, T., Z. C. Lipton, M. Tschannen, et al. Born-again neural networks. In J. G. Dy,
A. Krause, eds., ICML, pages 1602–1611. 2018.
[29] Touvron, H., M. Cord, M. Douze, et al. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation
through attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12877, 2020.
[30] Sanh, V., L. Debut, J. Chaumond, et al. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster,
cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, 2019.
[31] Zhang, Y., T. Xiang, T. M. Hospedales, et al. Deep mutual learning. In CVPR, pages 4320–4328.
2018.
[32] Anil, R., G. Pereyra, A. Passos, et al. Large scale distributed neural network training through
online distillation. In ICLR. 2018.
[33] Tarvainen, A., H. Valpola. Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency
targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. In NIPS, pages 1195–1204. 2017.
[34] Li, J., R. Socher, S. C. Hoi. Dividemix: Learning with noisy labels as semi-supervised learning.
In ICLR. 2020.
[35] Cheng, R., B. Wu, P. Zhang, et al. Data-efficient language-supervised zero-shot learning with
self-distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08945, 2021.
[36] Dosovitskiy, A., L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers
for image recognition at scale. In ICLR. 2021.
[37] Vaswani, A., N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, et al. Attention is all you need. In I. Guyon, U. von
Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett, eds., NIPS,
pages 5998–6008. 2017.
[38] Devlin, J., M. Chang, K. Lee, et al. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for
language understanding. In J. Burstein, C. Doran, T. Solorio, eds., NAACL, pages 4171–4186.
2019.
[39] Lin, T., M. Maire, S. J. Belongie, et al. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In D. J.
Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, T. Tuytelaars, eds., ECCV, vol. 8693, pages 740–755. 2014.
[40] Krishna, R., Y. Zhu, O. Groth, et al. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using
crowdsourced dense image annotations. IJCV, 123(1):32–73, 2017.
[41] Changpinyo, S., P. Sharma, N. Ding, et al. Conceptual 12M: Pushing web-scale image-text
pre-training to recognize long-tail visual concepts. In CVPR. 2021.
[42] Loshchilov, I., F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1711.05101, 2017.
[43] Cubuk, E. D., B. Zoph, J. Shlens, et al. Randaugment: Practical automated data augmentation
with a reduced search space. In CVPR Workshops, pages 702–703. 2020.
[44] Tian, Y., C. Sun, B. Poole, et al. What makes for good views for contrastive learning? In
H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin, eds., NeurIPS. 2020.
[45] Oord, A. v. d., Y. Li, O. Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018.
[46] Kong, L., C. de Masson d’Autume, L. Yu, et al. A mutual information maximization perspective
of language representation learning. In ICLR. [Link], 2020.
[47] Plummer, B. A., L. Wang, C. M. Cervantes, et al. Flickr30k entities: Collecting region-to-phrase
correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In ICCV, pages 2641–2649. 2015.

11
[48] Xie, N., F. Lai, D. Doran, et al. Visual entailment: A novel task for fine-grained image
understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06706, 2019.
[49] Goyal, Y., T. Khot, D. Summers-Stay, et al. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of
image understanding in visual question answering. In CVPR, pages 6325–6334. 2017.
[50] Yu, L., Z. Lin, X. Shen, et al. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression
comprehension. In CVPR, pages 1307–1315. 2018.
[51] Cho, J., J. Lei, H. Tan, et al. Unifying vision-and-language tasks via text generation. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2102.02779, 2021.
[52] Kim, J., J. Jun, B. Zhang. Bilinear attention networks. In S. Bengio, H. M. Wallach,
H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, R. Garnett, eds., NIPS, pages 1571–1581. 2018.
[53] Yu, L., P. Poirson, S. Yang, et al. Modeling context in referring expressions. In B. Leibe,
J. Matas, N. Sebe, M. Welling, eds., ECCV, pages 69–85. 2016.
[54] Liu, X., L. Li, S. Wang, et al. Adaptive reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring
expression grounding. In ICCV, pages 2611–2620. 2019.
[55] Zhang, Z., Z. Zhao, Z. Lin, et al. Counterfactual contrastive learning fo weakly-supervised
vision-language grounding. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin, eds.,
NeurIPS. 2020.
[56] Karpathy, A., F. Li. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In
CVPR, pages 3128–3137. 2015.
[57] Bowman, S. R., G. Angeli, C. Potts, et al. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language
inference. In L. Màrquez, C. Callison-Burch, J. Su, D. Pighin, Y. Marton, eds., EMNLP, pages
632–642. 2015.
[58] Yu, Z., J. Yu, Y. Cui, et al. Deep modular co-attention networks for visual question answering.
In CVPR, pages 6281–6290. 2019.
[59] Kazemzadeh, S., V. Ordonez, M. Matten, et al. Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs
of natural scenes. In A. Moschitti, B. Pang, W. Daelemans, eds., EMNLP. 2014.
[60] Das, A., H. Agrawal, C. L. Zitnick, et al. Human Attention in Visual Question Answering: Do
Humans and Deep Networks Look at the Same Regions? 2016.

12
A Downstream Task Details
Here we describe the implementation details for fine-tuning the pre-trained model. For all downstream
tasks, we use the same RandAugment, AdamW optimizer, cosine learning rate decay, weight decay,
and distillation weight as during pre-training. All downstream tasks receive input images of resolution
384 × 384. During inference, we resize the images without any cropping.
Image-Text Retrieval. We consider two datasets for this task: COCO and Flickr30K. We adopt the
widely used Karpathy split [56] for both datasets. COCO contains 113/5k/5k for train/validation/test.
Flickr30K contains 29k/1k/1k images for train/validation/test. We fine-tune for 10 epochs. The batch
size is 256 and the initial learning rate is 1e−5 .
Visual Entailment. We evaluate on the SNLI-VE dataset [48], which is constructed using the
Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) [57] and Flickr30K datasets. We follow the original
dataset split with 29.8k images for training, 1k for evaluation, and 1k for test. We fine-tune the
pre-trained model for 5 epochs with a batch size of 256 and an initial learning rate of 2e−5 .
VQA. We conduct experiment on the VQA2.0 dataset [49], which is constructed using images
from COCO. It contains 83k images for training, 41k for validation, and 81k for test. We report
performance on the test-dev and test-std splits. Following most existing works [1, 2, 58], we use both
training and validation sets for training, and include additional question-answer pairs from Visual
Genome. Because many questions in the VQA dataset contains multiple answers, we weight the loss
for each answer by its percentage of occurrence among all answers. We fine-tune the model for 8
epochs, using a batch size of 256 and an initial learning rate of 2e−5 .
NLVR2 . We conduct experiments following the original train/val/test split in [19]. We fine-tune the
model for 10 epochs, using a batch size of 128 and an initial learning rate of 2e−5 . Because NLVR
receives two input images, we perform an additional step of pre-training with text-assignment (TA) to
prepare the model for reasoning over two images. The TA pre-training uses images of size 256 × 256.
We pre-train for 1 epoch on the 4M dataset, using a batch size of 256 and a learning rate of 2e−5 .
Visual Grounding. We conduct experiments on the RefCOCO+ dataset [53], which is collected
using a two-player ReferitGame [59]. It contains 141,564 expressions for 19,992 images from COCO
training set. Strictly speaking, our model is not allowed to see the val/test images of RefCOCO+,
but it has been exposed to those images during pre-training. We hypothesize that this has little effect
because these images only occupy a very small portion of the entire 14M pre-training images, and
leave it as future work to decontaminate the data. During weakly-supervised fine-tuning, we follow
the same strategy as image-text retrieval except that we do not perform random cropping, and train
the model for 5 epochs. During inference, we use either sitc or sitm to compute the importance score
for each 16 × 16 image patch. For ITC, we compute Grad-CAM visualizations on the self-attention
maps w.r.t the [CLS] token in the last layer of the visual encoder, and average the heatmaps across all
attention heads. For ITM, we compute Grad-CAM on the cross-attention maps in the 3rd layer of
the multimodal encoder, and average them scores across all attention heads and all input text tokens.
Quantitative comparison between ITC and ITM is shown in Table 5. Figure 7 shows the qualitative
comparison. Since the multimodal encoder can better model image-text interactions, it produces
better heatmaps that capture finer-grained details. In Figure 8, we report the grounding accuracy for
each cross-attention layer and each individual attention head within the best-performing layer.
“small black bag” “the larger black suitcase” “elephant with trunk curled” “elephant with trunk up”

ITC

ITM

Figure 7: Grad-CAMs from the multimodal encoder capture finer-grained details such as “larger” and “curled”.

13
 60 60
all heads

grounding acc (%)

grounding acc (%)
50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
cross-attention layer cross-attention head
(a) (b)
Figure 8: Grounding accuracy on the validation set of RefCOCO+. (a) varying cross-attention layers where
each layer uses all heads. (b) varying cross-attention heads in the best-performing (3rd) layer.

“the woman is working on her computer at the desk”

“woman” “working” “computer” “desk”

“a woman on a motorcycle wearing a bag and passing a car”

“on” “wearing” “passing” “car”

“an old vehicle painted light blue and dark blue”

“old” “vehicle” “light” “dark”

“a young boy with an umbrella who is touching the horn of a cow”

“boy” “umbrella” “touching” “horn”

Figure 9: Grad-CAM visualization on the cross-attention maps corresponding to individual words.

B Additional Per-word Visualizations

In Figure 9, we show more visualizations of per-word Grad-CAM to demonstrate the ability of our
model to perform visual grounding of objects, actions, attributes, and relationships.

14
 Image Human Attention Grad-CAM

Q: is the person
snowboarding?
A: no.

Q: what color are

the animal’s eyes?
A: green.

Q: what kind of
numbers are on
this clock?
A: roman.

Figure 10: Qualitative comparison between human attention and ALBEF’s Grad-CAM for VQA.

C Comparison with Human Attention

Das et al. [60] collected human attention maps for a subset of the VQA dataset [20]. Given a question
and a blurred version of the image, humans on Amazon Mechanical Turk were asked to interactively
deblur image regions until they could confidently answer the question. In this work we compare
human attention maps to Grad-CAM visualizations for the ALBEF VQA model computed at the 3rd
multi-modal cross-attention layer on 1374 validation question-image pairs using the rank correlation
evaluation protocol as in [60]. We find Grad-CAM and human attention maps computed for the
ground-truth answer to have a high correlation of 0.205. This shows that despite not being trained on
grounded image-text pairs, ALBEF looks at appropriate regions when making decisions. Qualitative
examples showing the comparison with human attention maps can be found in Figure 10.

D Additional Examples of Pseudo-targets

GT: a demonstration of a group of people practicing their
GT: a group of water lilies
rights
Top-5 pseudo-targets:
Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. water lilies covering a pond
1. demonstration for the rights of refugees
2. a pond just inland from the
2. people carry red flags and banners in the parade
coast has abundant water lilies
3. a demonstration of a group of people practicing their
3. water lilies on a wetland
rights
4. a group of water lilies
4. a crowd of people with flags
5. a view of the marsh
5. people attend a rally demanding the release of politician
GT: this is real fast food
GT: young rock star jamming on a guitar
Top-5 pseudo-targets:
Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. transform shredded chicken into decadent sandwiches
1. hard rock artist photographed during a
2. recipes up your game and make something other than
live performance
just tacos this week
2. portrait of hard rock artist guitarist
3. with rice chicken and vegetables this proves salad can
photographed before a live performance
be way more than a bed of lettuce
3. guitar player on the concert
4. pork is roasted on site for these tacos
4. musician performing live on stage
5. we used lean turkey instead of beef so we could stuff
5. pop artist poses at event
these babies with cheese
GT: scenes of boats in the ocean GT: picket fence and a city
Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. small white boat sailing away on the endless blue 1. a family home in a north suburb
sea covered in snow
2. small sail boat heading to the sea away from the 2. rural house with a fence in winter
shore 3. picket fence and a city
3. a sailboat travels across the horizon off the shores 4. a suburban house is covered in snow
4. a bareboat sailboat moored in a tranquil bay after a storm
5. scenes of boats in the ocean 5. surrounds a home in winter weather

Figure 11: Examples of the top-5 most similar texts selected by the momentum model for ITC.

15
[MASK] and the fiancee at their engagement party [MASK] at the guesthouse or nearby a [MASK] in the garden
GT: person GT: animal GT: giant
Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. husband 1. fish 1. cafe
2. person 2. animal 2. house
3. me 3. animals 3. day
4. actor 4. wildlife 4. cottage
5. boyfriend 5. food 5. city

kitten playing with a [MASK] [MASK] clouds in the sky little cute boy playing with plastic building blocks
in the [MASK]
GT: dog GT: red GT: park
Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets: Top-5 pseudo-targets:
1. toy 1. pink 1. playground
2. blanket 2. colorful 2. park
3. ball 3. sunset 3. yard
4. mouse 4. red 4. garden
5. bone 5. dramatic 5. backyard

Figure 12: Examples of the top-5 words generated by the momentum model for MLM.

E Pre-training Dataset Details

Table 8 shows the statistics of the image and text of the pre-training datasets.

COCO (Karpathy-train) VG CC SBU CC12M

# image 113K 100K 2.95M 860K 10.06M
# text 567K 769K 2.95M 860K 10.06M

Table 8: Statistics of the pre-training datasets.

16