Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why is Winoground Hard? Investigating Failures in Visuolinguistic Compositionality

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.00768 v4 pith:CIDSTTLM submitted 2022-11-01 cs.CL cs.CV

classification cs.CLcs.CV
keywords datasetmodelstaskvisuolinguisticwinogroundchallengescompositionalgrass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent visuolinguistic pre-trained models show promising progress on various end tasks such as image retrieval and video captioning. Yet, they fail miserably on the recently proposed Winoground dataset, which challenges models to match paired images and English captions, with items constructed to overlap lexically but differ in meaning (e.g., "there is a mug in some grass" vs. "there is some grass in a mug"). By annotating the dataset using new fine-grained tags, we show that solving the Winoground task requires not just compositional language understanding, but a host of other abilities like commonsense reasoning or locating small, out-of-focus objects in low-resolution images. In this paper, we identify the dataset's main challenges through a suite of experiments on related tasks (probing task, image retrieval task), data augmentation, and manual inspection of the dataset. Our analysis suggests that a main challenge in visuolinguistic models may lie in fusing visual and textual representations, rather than in compositional language understanding. We release our annotation and code at https://github.com/ajd12342/why-winoground-hard .

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Behavioural vs. Representational Systematicity in End-to-End Models: An Opinionated Survey

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A survey showing that common systematic generalization benchmarks measure behavioural systematicity, not the representational systematicity that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge requires, and mapping them onto Hadley's ...

Pith tools