REVIEW 2 cited by
CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?
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
CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?
read the original abstract
A fundamental characteristic common to both human vision and natural language is their compositional nature. Yet, despite the performance gains contributed by large vision and language pretraining, we find that: across 7 architectures trained with 4 algorithms on massive datasets, they struggle at compositionality. To arrive at this conclusion, we introduce a new compositionality evaluation benchmark, CREPE, which measures two important aspects of compositionality identified by cognitive science literature: systematicity and productivity. To measure systematicity, CREPE consists of a test dataset containing over $370K$ image-text pairs and three different seen-unseen splits. The three splits are designed to test models trained on three popular training datasets: CC-12M, YFCC-15M, and LAION-400M. We also generate $325K$, $316K$, and $309K$ hard negative captions for a subset of the pairs. To test productivity, CREPE contains $17K$ image-text pairs with nine different complexities plus $183K$ hard negative captions with atomic, swapping and negation foils. The datasets are generated by repurposing the Visual Genome scene graphs and region descriptions and applying handcrafted templates and GPT-3. For systematicity, we find that model performance decreases consistently when novel compositions dominate the retrieval set, with Recall@1 dropping by up to $12\%$. For productivity, models' retrieval success decays as complexity increases, frequently nearing random chance at high complexity. These results hold regardless of model and training dataset size.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
How Do Language Models Compose Functions?
LLMs solve compositional factual recall either by computing intermediates or directly, with mechanism choice correlated to translation geometry in embedding spaces.
-
Sparse Attention for Dense Open-Vocabulary Prediction in CLIP
Replacing softmax with α-entmax in frozen CLIP's final attention layers denoises dense predictions by zeroing irrelevant token interactions, with gains proportional to baseline attention diffuseness.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.