Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Exploring How Generative MLLMs Perceive More Than CLIP with the Same Vision Encoder

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 2411.05195 v3 pith:M5E3VCFR submitted 2024-11-07 cs.LG cs.CLcs.CV

Exploring How Generative MLLMs Perceive More Than CLIP with the Same Vision Encoder

classification cs.LG cs.CLcs.CV
keywords clipencodergenerativemllmsmodelsvisualinformationsame
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent research has shown that CLIP models struggle with visual reasoning tasks that require grounding compositionality, understanding spatial relationships, or capturing fine-grained details. One natural hypothesis is that the CLIP vision encoder does not embed essential information for these tasks. However, we find that this is not always the case: The encoder gathers query-relevant visual information, while CLIP fails to extract it. In particular, we show that another branch of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), Generative Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), achieve significantly higher accuracy than CLIP in many of these tasks using the same vision encoder and weights, indicating that these Generative MLLMs perceive more -- as they extract and utilize visual information more effectively. We conduct a series of controlled experiments and reveal that their success is attributed to multiple key design choices, including patch tokens, position embeddings, and prompt-based weighting. On the other hand, enhancing the training data alone or applying a stronger text encoder does not suffice to solve the task, and additional text tokens offer little benefit. Interestingly, we find that fine-grained visual reasoning is not exclusive to generative models trained by an autoregressive loss: When converted into CLIP-like encoders by contrastive finetuning, these MLLMs still outperform CLIP under the same cosine similarity-based evaluation protocol. Our study highlights the importance of VLM architectural choices and suggests directions for improving the performance of CLIP-like contrastive VLMs.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Turning Generators into Retrievers: Unlocking MLLMs for Natural Language-Guided Geo-Localization

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning lets MLLMs serve as effective retrievers for natural-language-guided cross-view geo-localization, beating dual-encoder baselines on GeoText-1652 and CVG-Text while using far fewer train...

  2. Let Language Constrain Geometry: Vision-Language Models as Semantic and Spatial Critics for 3D Generation

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A frozen VLM's dual-query Yes/No log-odds act as a differentiable semantic-and-spatial critic, improving alignment and geometry in both SDS-based and feed-forward text-to-3D pipelines.

  3. RewardDance: Reward Scaling in Visual Generation

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    RewardDance reframes visual reward modeling as a yes/no judgment task in a VLM and reports consistent gains in text-to-image, text-to-video, and image-to-video generation as the reward model scales from 1B to 26B.

  4. If Concept Bottlenecks are the Question, are Foundation Models the Answer?

    cs.LG 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Empirical tests of VLM-CBMs show VLM supervision differs from expert annotations depending on task and that concept accuracy correlates weakly with quality metrics.