arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2602.02043cs.CVcs.AI

Auto-Comp: 一种用于可扩展组合探测对比视觉-语言模型的自动化流水线

Beyond Bag-of-Words: Diagnosing Compositional Binding Failures in Vision-Language Models

Politecnico di Milano(米兰理工学院);The University of Tokyo(东京大学)

Cristian Sbrolli, Toshihiko Yamasaki, Matteo Matteucci

AI总结:

Auto-Comp通过自动化生成可扩展基准,揭示了对比视觉-语言模型在组合推理中的普遍缺陷及视觉-语言上下文的权衡问题。

摘要:

现代视觉-语言模型(VLMs)在组合推理方面存在关键缺陷,常常将

英文摘要:

Modern vision-language models struggle with basic compositional reasoning, failing to bind attributes to objects or relations to their referents. Existing benchmarks either rely on noisy real images that conflate confounding visual variables with the reasoning failure, or use simplistic synthetic scenes lacking the realism modern VLMs are tuned for. We introduce \textbf{Auto-Comp}, a fully automated, concept-driven pipeline that bridges this gap by generating photorealistic compositional benchmarks at scale. Its core innovation is a \textit{parallel A/B construction}: for each concept, the pipeline emits a \textit{Minimal} sample (template caption, isolated objects on a white background) and a \textit{Contextual} sample (LLM-rewritten caption, objects embedded in a realistic scene), isolating core binding ability from visio-linguistic complexity. We instantiate \textit{four} task families spanning the two canonical axes of compositional binding: \textit{Color} and \textit{Shape-Color} (attribute binding), and \textit{Position} and \textit{Relative Size} (relational binding). We evaluate over 25 VLMs spanning CLIP, SigLIP, hard-negative-trained, and frontier generative models. The findings are consistent across architectures and scales: every model exhibits a large Swap-vs-Confusion gap, with low-entropy distractors (e.g., repeated objects or colors) exposing failures \textit{beyond} the known bag-of-words limitations. We further uncover a task-dependent trade-off: visio-linguistic context aids relational reasoning but hinders attribute binding through visual clutter. We publicly release the pipeline and benchmarks.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑