Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

How and where does CLIP process 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

arxiv 2407.10488 v1 pith:V4VY77OH submitted 2024-07-15 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Various benchmarks have been proposed to test linguistic understanding in pre-trained vision \& language (VL) models. Here we build on the existence task from the VALSE benchmark (Parcalabescu et al, 2022) which we use to test models' understanding of negation, a particularly interesting issue for multimodal models. However, while such VL benchmarks are useful for measuring model performance, they do not reveal anything about the internal processes through which these models arrive at their outputs in such visio-linguistic tasks. We take inspiration from the growing literature on model interpretability to explain the behaviour of VL models on the understanding of negation. Specifically, we approach these questions through an in-depth analysis of the text encoder in CLIP (Radford et al, 2021), a highly influential VL model. We localise parts of the encoder that process negation and analyse the role of attention heads in this task. Our contributions are threefold. We demonstrate how methods from the language model interpretability literature (such as causal tracing) can be translated to multimodal models and tasks; we provide concrete insights into how CLIP processes negation on the VALSE existence task; and we highlight inherent limitations in the VALSE dataset as a benchmark for linguistic understanding.

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. NegVQA: Can Vision Language Models Understand Negation?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NegVQA shows that current vision language models, including the best available open models, lose about 20 to 30 percentage points in accuracy when a visual question is negated.

  2. TNG-CLIP:Training-Time Negation Data Generation for Negation Awareness of CLIP

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-time pipeline that synthesizes diverse negation captions from batch neighbors improves CLIP's negation accuracy on matching and generation benchmarks, and a new NEG-TTOI benchmark measures negation handling...

Pith tools