Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

ConMe: Rethinking Evaluation of Compositional Reasoning for Modern VLMs

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 2406.08164 v3 pith:UIQVDCFH submitted 2024-06-12 cs.CV

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

Compositional Reasoning (CR) entails grasping the significance of attributes, relations, and word order. Recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs), comprising a visual encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) decoder, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in such reasoning tasks. This prompts a crucial question: have VLMs effectively tackled the CR challenge? We conjecture that existing CR benchmarks may not adequately push the boundaries of modern VLMs due to the reliance on an LLM-only negative text generation pipeline. Consequently, the negatives produced either appear as outliers from the natural language distribution learned by VLMs' LLM decoders or as improbable within the corresponding image context. To address these limitations, we introduce ConMe -- a compositional reasoning benchmark and a novel data generation pipeline leveraging VLMs to produce `hard CR Q&A'. Through a new concept of VLMs conversing with each other to collaboratively expose their weaknesses, our pipeline autonomously generates, evaluates, and selects challenging compositional reasoning questions, establishing a robust CR benchmark, also subsequently validated manually. Our benchmark provokes a noteworthy, up to 33%, decrease in CR performance compared to preceding benchmarks, reinstating the CR challenge even for state-of-the-art VLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Understanding Space Is Rocket Science -- Only Top Reasoning Models Can Solve Spatial Understanding Tasks

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new contrastive real-image benchmark shows most vision-language models fail spatial relation tasks, while chain-of-thought reasoning models approach human-level accuracy.

  2. CF-VLM:CounterFactual Vision-Language Fine-tuning

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CF-VLM fine-tunes VLMs on counterfactual image-text pairs with three objectives, reporting gains on compositional reasoning benchmarks and modest hallucination reductions.

Pith tools