Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Tencent AI Data Department · School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology · School of Computer Science, Nanjing University
Composed image retrieval (CIR) requires multi-modal models to jointly reason over visual content and semantic modifications presented in text-image input pairs. While current CIR models achieve strong performance on common benchmark cases, their accuracies often degrades in more challenging scenarios where negative candidates are semantically aligned with the query image or text. In this paper, we attribute this degradation to focus imbalances, where models disproportionately attend to one modality while neglecting the other. To validate this claim, we propose FBCIR, a multi-modal focus interpretation method that identifies the most crucial visual and textual input components to a model's retrieval decisions. Using FBCIR, we report that focus imbalances are prevalent in existing CIR models, especially under hard negative settings. Building on the analyses, we further propose a CIR data augmentation workflow that facilitates existing CIR datasets with curated hard negatives designed to encourage balanced cross-modal reasoning. Extensive experiments across multiple CIR models demonstrate that the proposed augmentation consistently improves performance in challenging cases, while maintaining their capabilities on standard benchmarks. Together, our interpretation method and data augmentation workflow provide a new perspective on CIR model diagnosis and robustness improvements.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Models trained on common-case data learn “shortcuts” to get correct common-case retrieval results, but tend to fail on hard cases that require balanced cross-modal focuses. In this paper, we try to solve this issue by constructing targeted hard negatives. Original positives that are not highly consistent with the query are also considered negative in the proposed framework and replaced by more consistent synthetic images.
Figure 2: The overall framework of FBCIR , including a multi-modal model focus interpretation method and a dataset augmentation workflow. Given CIR triplets, the focus interpretation method highlights specific image segments and instruction keywords as the model’s focuses, and reveals possible focus imbalances. The dataset augmentation framework facilitates existing CIR triplets with crafted hard negatives that encourage more balanced focuses. The focus interpretation module serves as the problem indicator and post-hoc validator of the data augmentation module.
Figure 3: The multi-modal iterative focus refinement process of FBCIR .
Figure 4: Examples of the data constructed by the FBCIR-Data workflow. For the real-life dataset MegaPairs, we synthesize a positive for each triplet, and regard the original positive a special candidate.
Benchmark
Queries
Candidates
Candidates (Local)
CIRR
4180
2265
5.97
FashionIQ
12032
6003
N/A
GeneCIS
3920
3030
15.0
FBCIR-Data
1000
3844
5.0
Table 1: Statistical comparisons between the FBCIR-Data and the standard benchmarks. Note that our proposed benchmark can be easily expanded based on existing triplets.
Model
Average
FBCIR-Data
Focus
Rs@1
Imbalance
CLIP-based Models
CLIP4CIR-RN50
24.9
33.4
0.53
CLIP4CIR-RN50x4
26.0
31.2
0.65
SEARLE-base
23.6
29.3
0.27
SEARLE-large
24.7
30.2
0.70
Table 2: Pretrained performance of the tested CIR models on the standard and the FBCIR-Data benchmarks. The “Average” column shows the average value of CIRR R@1, CIRR Rs@1, FashionIQ R@1, and GeneCIS Rs@1.
Table 3: Finetuned performance of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the standard and the FBCIR-Data benchmarks. Higher is better.
Metrics: Focus Imbalance (Reduction)
Data
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Rank
GME-2B (Pretrained: 0.54)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 0.55)
2
0.51 ( -0.03 )
0.58 ( +0.04 )
0.21 ( -0.33 )
0.28 ( -0.26 )
0.54 ( -0.01 )
0.54 ( -0.02 )
0.23 ( -0.33 )
0.13 ( -0.42 )
4
0.56 ( +0.02 )
0.40 ( -0.14 )
0.17 ( -0.38 )
0.32 ( -0.22 )
0.54 ( -0.01 )
0.54 ( -0.02 )
0.23 ( -0.33 )
0.13 ( -0.42 )
Rank
RzenEmbed-7B (Pretrained: 0.43)
MM-Embed-7B (Pretrained: 0.60)
2
0.44 ( +0.01 )
0.23 ( -0.21 )
0.10 ( -0.33 )
0.11 ( -0.32 )
0.56 ( -0.04 )
0.05 ( -0.55 )
0.06 ( -0.54 )
0.16 ( -0.44 )
Table 4: Finetuned focus imbalances of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks. Lower is better.
Metrics: FBCIR -CIRR Rs@1 (Gain)
Data
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Rank
GME-2B (Pretrained: 28.5)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 32.9)
2
29.8 ( +1.3 )
29.6 ( +1.1 )
28.0 ( -0.5 )
30.2 ( +1.7 )
27.4 ( +2.4 )
27.7 ( +2.7 )
27.3 ( +2.3 )
29.0 ( +4.0 )
4
29.2 ( +0.7 )
28.7 ( +0.2 )
29.7 ( +1.2 )
30.0 ( +1.5 )
27.3 ( +2.3 )
28.7 ( +3.7 )
29.4 ( +4.4 )
30.1 ( +5.1 )
Rank
RzenEmbed-7B (Pretrained: 30.1)
MM-Embed-7B (Pretrained: 26.7)
2
30.5 ( +0.4 )
31.5 ( +1.4 )
30.4 ( +0.3 )
33.2 ( +3.1 )
29.4 ( +1.9 )
31.5 ( +4.0 )
29.5 ( +2.0 )
33.3 ( +5.8 )
Table 5: Finetuned zero-shot performance of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the FBCIR -augmented CIRR benchmark. Higher is better.
Metrics: Average (Gain) / FBCIR-Data Rs@1 (Gain)
Neg
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Ratio
GME-2B (Pretrained: 33.8 / 29.7)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 36.1 / 32.9)
0%
35.7 / 33.6
36.0 / 33.1
35.3 / 34.5
35.6 / 33.3
38.8 / 38.6
39.6 / 38.6
39.2 / 39.3
39.4 / 39.1
25%
35.9 ( +0.2 )
36.2 ( +0.2 )
37.2 ( +1.8 )
36.2 ( +0.6 )
40.4 ( +1.6 )
39.3 ( -0.2 )
38.5 ( -0.7 )
39.6 ( +0.1 )
34.6 ( +1.0 )
36.2 ( +3.1 )
37.2 ( +2.7 )
37.8 ( +4.5 )
40.5 ( +1.9 )
41.5 ( +2.9 )
40.3 ( +1.0 )
41.1 ( +2.0 )
50%
36.5 ( +0.8 )
36.6 ( +0.6 )
35.3 (+0.0)
36.4 ( +0.7 )
39.3 ( +0.5 )
41.1 ( +1.6 )
40.7 ( +1.6 )
41.3 ( +1.8 )
Table 6: Finetuned (with 2-rank LoRA) performance of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and negative ratios on the FBCIR-Data benchmark. Higher is better.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Visualizations of image and text focus balance ratios, and examples with semantics of a specific modality completely ignored by the models.
Table 8: Finetuned performance of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the standard and the FBCIR-Data benchmarks (extension of Table 3 in the main paper). Higher is better.
Metrics: Focus Imbalance (Reduction)
Data
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Rank
GME-2B (Pretrained: 0.54)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 0.55)
2
0.51 ( -0.03 )
0.58 ( +0.04 )
0.21 ( -0.33 )
0.28 ( -0.26 )
0.54 ( -0.01 )
0.54 ( -0.02 )
0.23 ( -0.33 )
0.13 ( -0.42 )
4
0.56 ( +0.02 )
0.40 ( -0.14 )
0.17 ( -0.38 )
0.32 ( -0.22 )
0.54 ( -0.01 )
0.54 ( -0.02 )
0.23 ( -0.33 )
0.13 ( -0.42 )
8
0.58 ( +0.04 )
0.16 ( -0.38 )
0.20 ( -0.34 )
0.17 ( -0.37 )
0.53 ( -0.03 )
0.26 ( -0.29 )
0.27 ( -0.29 )
0.31 ( -0.24 )
16
0.56 ( +0.02 )
0.34 ( -0.20 )
0.32 ( -0.22 )
0.27 ( -0.27 )
0.56 (-0.00)
0.22 ( -0.33 )
0.35 ( -0.21 )
0.28 ( -0.28 )
Appendix
Table 9: Finetuned focus imbalances of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks (extension of Table 4 in the main paper). Lower is better.
Metrics: FBCIR -CIRR Rs@1 (Gain)
Data
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Rank
GME-2B (Pretrained: 28.5)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 25.0)
2
29.8 ( +1.3 )
29.6 ( +1.1 )
28.0 ( -0.5 )
30.2 ( +1.7 )
27.4 ( +2.4 )
27.7 ( +2.7 )
27.3 ( +2.3 )
29.0 ( +4.0 )
4
29.2 ( +0.7 )
28.7 ( +0.2 )
29.7 ( +1.2 )
30.0 ( +1.5 )
27.3 ( +2.3 )
28.7 ( +3.7 )
29.4 ( +4.4 )
30.1 ( +5.1 )
8
28.8 ( +0.3 )
29.4 ( +0.9 )
30.3 ( +1.8 )
30.5 ( +2.0 )
29.0 ( +4.0 )
27.7 ( +2.7 )
28.7 ( +3.7 )
28.5 ( +3.5 )
16
29.3 ( +0.8 )
28.0 ( -0.5 )
29.3 ( +0.8 )
31.5 ( +3.0 )
27.7 ( +2.7 )
28.5 ( +3.5 )
28.9 ( +3.9 )
30.4 ( +5.4 )
Appendix
Table 10: Finetuned zero-shot performance of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the FBCIR -augmented CIRR benchmark (extension of Table 5 in the main paper). Higher is better.
Metrics: Average (Gain) / FBCIR-Data Rs@1 (Gain)
Data
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Rank
CLIP4CIR-RN50 (Pretrained: 24.9 / 33.4)
CLIP4CIR-RN50x4 (Pretrained: 34.2 / 41.4)
N/A
20.3 ( -4.6 )
20.2 ( -4.6 )
17.6 ( -7.3 )
19.1 ( -5.7 )
27.8 ( -6.4 )
26.5 ( -7.6 )
25.6 ( -8.6 )
25.4 ( -8.8 )
42.2 ( +8.8 )
47.0 ( +13.6 )
41.7 ( +8.3 )
48.4 ( +15.0 )
50.7 ( +9.3 )
51.0 ( +9.6 )
53.8 ( +12.4 )
51.4 ( +10.0 )
Rank
SEARLE-base (Pretrained: 23.6 / 29.3)
SEARLE-large (Pretrained: 24.7 / 30.2)
N/A
23.0 ( -0.6 )
22.7 ( -0.9 )
22.9 ( -0.7 )
22.5 ( -1.0 )
24.7 (+0.0)
24.4 ( -0.3 )
23.9 ( -0.7 )
23.3 ( -1.4 )
Appendix
Table 11: Finetuned performance of the CLIP-based CIR models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the standard and the FBCIR-Data benchmarks. Higher is better.
Metrics: Focus Imbalance (Reduction)
Neg
5K
10K
20K
50K
5K
10K
20K
50K
Ratio
GME-2B (Pretrained: 0.54)
GME-7B (Pretrained: 0.55)
0%
0.58
0.53
0.15
0.28
0.49
0.53
0.32
0.28
25%
0.52 ( -0.05 )
0.37 ( -0.16 )
0.28 ( +0.13 )
0.20 ( -0.08 )
0.52 ( +0.03 )
0.55 ( +0.02 )
0.28 ( -0.04 )
0.12 ( -0.17 )
50%
0.51 ( -0.07 )
0.58 ( +0.05 )
0.21 ( +0.06 )
0.28 ( +0.01 )
0.54 ( +0.05 )
0.54 ( +0.01 )
0.23 ( -0.09 )
0.13 ( -0.15 )
75%
0.48 ( -0.10 )
0.30 ( -0.22 )
0.23 ( +0.08 )
0.25 ( -0.03 )
0.46 ( -0.03 )
0.36 ( -0.17 )
0.29 ( -0.02 )
0.26 ( -0.03 )
Appendix
Table 12: Finetuned (with 2-rank LoRA) focus imbalances of the VLM-based CIR models trained with different data scales and negative ratios. Lower is better.
Data / Rank
CIRR R@1
CIRR Rs@1
FashionIQ R@1
GeneCIS Rs@1
GME-2B
Pretrained
32.8
41.5
39.8
21.1
5K / 2
36.8 ( +4.0 )
48.3 ( +6.8 )
40.0 ( +0.2 )
20.9 ( -0.2 )
10K / 2
37.1 ( +4.4 )
48.4 ( +6.9 )
39.7 ( -0.1 )
21.3 ( +0.2 )
20K / 2
35.3 ( +2.5 )
45.6 ( +4.1 )
39.9 (+0.0)
20.5 ( -0.6 )
50K / 2
36.8 ( +4.1 )
47.7 ( +6.3 )
40.1 ( +0.3 )
20.8 ( -0.3 )
Appendix
Table 13: Finetuned performance of the VLM-based GME models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the standard benchmarks (extension of Table 3 in the main paper). Higher is better.
Data / Rank
CIRR R@1
CIRR Rs@1
FashionIQ R@1
GeneCIS Rs@1
RzenEmbed-7B
Pretrained
40.1
47.5
41.2
21.4
5K / 2
41.5 ( +1.3 )
49.8 ( +2.3 )
41.3 ( +0.1 )
22.1 ( +0.7 )
10K / 2
43.7 ( +3.5 )
53.5 ( +6.0 )
40.7 ( -0.5 )
23.6 ( +2.2 )
20K / 2
45.5 ( +5.3 )
55.9 ( +8.4 )
40.8 ( -0.4 )
23.0 ( +1.5 )
50K / 2
44.6 ( +4.5 )
54.8 ( +7.3 )
40.6 ( -0.6 )
22.9 ( +1.4 )
Appendix
Table 14: Finetuned performance of the VLM-based RzenEmbed-7B and MM-Embed-7B models trained with different data scales and LoRA ranks on the standard benchmarks (extension of Table 3 in the main paper). Higher is better.
Model
CLIP4CIR-RN50
SEARLE-base
BGE-base
GME-2B
RzenEmbed-7B
Time / s
0.24
0.23
0.05
0.53
0.90
Model
CLIP4CIR-RN50x4
SEARLE-large
BGE-large
GME-7B
MM-Embed-7B
Time / s
0.25
0.29
0.06
0.89
1.29
Appendix
Table 15: Inference time of the tested CIR models on a batch of size 12 on one single NVIDIA H20 GPU with bfloat16 precision.
Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) is a multimodal retrieval task where a query consists of a reference image and a textual modification, and the goal is to retrieve a target image satisfying both. In principle, strong performance on CIR benchmarks is assumed to require multimodal composition, i.e., combining complementary information from reference image and textual modification. In this work, we show that this assumption does not always hold. Across four widely used CIR benchmarks and eleven Generalist Multimodal Embedding models, a large fraction of queries can be solved using a single modality (from 32.2% to 83.6%), revealing pervasive unimodal shortcuts. Thus, high CIR performance can arise from unimodal signals rather than true multimodal composition. To better understand this issue, we perform a two-stage audit. First, we identify shortcut-solvable queries through cross-model analysis. Second, we conduct human validation on 4,741 shortcut-free queries, of which only 1,689 are well-formed, with common issues including ambiguous edits and mismatched targets. Re-evaluating models on this validated subset reveals qualitatively different behaviour: queries can no longer be solved with a single modality, and successful retrieval requires combining both inputs. While accuracy decreases, reliance on multimodal information increases. Overall, current CIR benchmarks conflate shortcut-solvable, noisy, and genuinely compositional queries, leading to an overestimation of model capability in multimodal composition.
Matteo Attimonelli, Alessandro De Bellis, Aryo Pradipta Gema +8
Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) uses a reference image and a modification text as a query to retrieve a target image satisfying the requirement of modifying the reference image according to the text instructions''. However, existing CIR methods face two limitations: (1) frequency bias leading to Rare Sample Neglect'', and (2) susceptibility of similarity scores to interference from hard negative samples and noise. To address these limitations, we confront two key challenges: asymmetric rare semantic localization and robust similarity estimation under hard negative samples. To solve these challenges, we propose the Modification frEquentation-rarity baLance neTwork MELT. MELT assigns increased attention to rare modification semantics in multimodal contexts while applying diffusion-based denoising to hard negative samples with high similarity scores, enhancing multimodal fusion and matching. Extensive experiments on two CIR benchmarks validate the superior performance of MELT. Codes are available at https://github.com/luckylittlezhi/MELT.
Guozhi Qiu, Zhiwei Chen, Zixu Li +4
School of Software, Shandong University · Southern University of Science and Technology
Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) is a challenging image retrieval paradigm. It aims to retrieve target images from large-scale image databases that are consistent with the modification semantics, based on a multimodal query composed of a reference image and modification text. Although existing methods have made significant progress in cross-modal alignment and feature fusion, a key flaw remains: the neglect of contextual information in discriminating matching samples. However, addressing this limitation is not an easy task due to two challenges: 1) implicit dependencies and 2) the lack of a differential amplification mechanism. To address these challenges, we propose a dual-patH composItional coNtextualized neTwork (HINT), which can perform contextualized encoding and amplify the similarity differences between matching and non-matching samples, thus improving the upper performance of CIR models in complex scenarios. Our HINT model achieves optimal performance on all metrics across two CIR benchmark datasets, demonstrating the superiority of our HINT model. Codes are available at https://github.com/zh-mingyu/HINT.