Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2212.07796 v3 pith:SNACBLR3 submitted 2022-12-13 cs.CL cs.CV

CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?

classification cs.CL cs.CV
keywords crepecompositionalitydatasetsmodelspairsproductivitysystematicitytest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. How Do Language Models Compose Functions?

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMs solve compositional factual recall either by computing intermediates or directly, with mechanism choice correlated to translation geometry in embedding spaces.

  2. Sparse Attention for Dense Open-Vocabulary Prediction in CLIP

    cs.CV 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    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.