Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

CLoVe: Encoding Compositional Language in Contrastive Vision-Language Models

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 2402.15021 v2 pith:52VLYETJ submitted 2024-02-22 cs.CV cs.CL

classification cs.CVcs.CL
keywords modelslanguageperformancebenchmarksclovecompositionaltasksvision-language
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the performance of Vision and Language tasks. Foundational Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as CLIP, have been leveraged in multiple settings and demonstrated remarkable performance across several tasks. Such models excel at object-centric recognition yet learn text representations that seem invariant to word order, failing to compose known concepts in novel ways. However, no evidence exists that any VLM, including large-scale single-stream models such as GPT-4V, identifies compositions successfully. In this paper, we introduce a framework to significantly improve the ability of existing models to encode compositional language, with over 10% absolute improvement on compositionality benchmarks, while maintaining or improving the performance on standard object-recognition and retrieval benchmarks. Our code and pre-trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/netflix/clove.

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. A Good CREPE needs more than just Sugar: Investigating Biases in Compositional Vision-Language Benchmarks

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Blind text-only likelihood models match or exceed CLIP on many compositionality benchmarks because positives and negatives differ systematically in length, plausibility, or image style.

Pith tools