REVIEW 2 cited by
Vision-Language Models Do Not Understand Negation
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
abstract
Many practical vision-language applications require models that understand negation, e.g., when using natural language to retrieve images which contain certain objects but not others. Despite advancements in vision-language models (VLMs) through large-scale training, their ability to comprehend negation remains underexplored. This study addresses the question: how well do current VLMs understand negation? We introduce NegBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate negation understanding across 18 task variations and $79$k examples spanning image, video, and medical datasets. The benchmark consists of two core tasks designed to evaluate negation understanding in diverse multimodal settings: Retrieval with Negation and Multiple Choice Questions with Negated Captions. Our evaluation reveals that modern VLMs struggle significantly with negation, often performing at chance level. To address these shortcomings, we explore a data-centric approach wherein we finetune CLIP models on large-scale synthetic datasets containing millions of negated captions. We show that this approach can result in a 10% increase in recall on negated queries and a 28% boost in accuracy on multiple-choice questions with negated captions.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Decomposing Visual Classification: Assessing Tree-Based Reasoning in VLMs
Tree-based reasoning prompts consistently underperform standard zero-shot prompting for VLM image classification on GTSRB and CIFAR-10 across three models.
-
Learning to Detect Cross-Modal Negation: An Analysis of Latent Representations and an Attention-Based Solution
Negation is reported as a non-separable signal in standard VLM embeddings, cross-modal attention recovers up to +7% F1, and the paper claims visual negation depends on textual context.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.