Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China · Vision Intelligence Center, Hefei CAS Dihuge Automation Co., LTD, Hefei, China · School of Information Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), China · School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, China, and also with the Key Laboratory of Machine Intelligence and System Control, Ministry of Education, China · Research Center for Industries of the Future and the School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China, and also with OPPO Research, Seattle, WA, USA
Current vision-language detection and grounding models predominantly focus on prompts with positive semantics and often struggle to accurately interpret and ground complex expressions containing negative semantics. A key reason for this limitation is the lack of high-quality training data that explicitly captures discriminative negative samples and negation-aware language descriptions. To address this challenge, we introduce D-Negation, a new dataset that provides objects annotated with both positive and negative semantic descriptions. Building upon the observation that negation reasoning frequently appears in natural language, we further propose a grouped opposition-based learning framework that learns negation-aware representations from limited samples. Specifically, our method organizes opposing semantic descriptions from D-Negation into structured groups and formulates two complementary loss functions that encourage the model to reason about negation and semantic qualifiers. We integrate the proposed dataset and learning strategy into a state-of-the-art language-based grounding model. By fine-tuning fewer than 10 percent of the model parameters, our approach achieves improvements of up to 4.4 mAP and 5.7 mAP on positive and negative semantic evaluations, respectively. These results demonstrate that explicitly modeling negation semantics can substantially enhance the robustness and localization accuracy of vision-language grounding models.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Intuition of positive and negative semantic referring. Besides object names and positive logic descriptions, humans can refer to objects with negative-semantic. For instance, when unsure how to describe the color of the calico cat, one might say, “the cat not in black.” Existing grounding models struggle to understand such referring and may even provide opposite localization results. By further fine-tuning, our method can efficiently enhance the grounding ability to complex referring.
Fig. 2: (a) We use the advanced MLLM, GPT-4V, to generate 6 positive semantic and six negative semantic referrings for every selected image. (b) The proposed D-Negation dataset contains a total of 13,893 images across 80 categories. (c) The proposed D-Negation dataset contains 139,980 text annotations. What sets it apart from existing datasets is the significantly higher frequency of negation words, as well as a greater tendency to use modifiers to describe objects.
Fig. 3: Overview of the proposed fine-tuning framework with explicit semantic-opposition constraints. The framework is designed for the D-Negation dataset and is compatible with visual grounding models that incorporate a vision–language fusion module. Given an image and semantically opposed textual descriptions (e.g., positive vs. negative attributes), text embeddings interact with visual features in the fusion module and are decoded into grounding predictions. Beyond standard grounding losses, we introduce two complementary objectives. The TSO loss imposes a distance-based exclusion constraint in the text embedding space, explicitly pushing semantically opposed descriptions (e.g., “red” vs. “not red”) apart. The PNC loss enforces a semantic exclusion constraint , ensuring that a visual region cannot be simultaneously aligned with both polarities of the same attribute. Together, these constraints address negation-induced grounding ambiguity by enforcing semantic opposition at both the linguistic and cross-modal fusion levels.
Method
Image Consumption
Batch Size
Epochs
Grounding-DINO
∼ 6.8M
64
18
APE
17.28M
16
1
Ours
13K
1
1
TABLE I: Comparison of Training Configurations
Method
Intra-scenario
Inter-scenario
Full
Presence
Absence
Full
Presence
Absence
SPHINX-7B [ 24 ]
10.6
11.4
7.9
-
-
-
GLIP-T [ 23 ]
19.1
18.3
21.5
-
-
-
OFA-DOD [ 49 ]
21.6
23.7
15.4
5.7
6.9
2.3
FIBER-B [ 8 ]
22.7
21.5
26.0
-
-
-
MLLM with a larger parameter scale
TABLE II: Performance comparison on D3 dataset.
Grounding Models
Original
+Flickr30k
+Ours
Grounding-DINO-Base
71.1
72.6 (+1.5)
75.3 (+4.2)
Grounding-DINO-Full
74.2
74.0 (-0.2)
77.0 (+2.8)
APE-A
76.8
75.0 (-1.8)
78.9 (+2.1)
APE-B
80.5
78.9 (-1.6)
83.7 (+3.2)
APE-C
78.6
80.1 (+1.4)
82.8 (+4.2)
APE-D
78.9
80.2 (+1.3)
84.1 (+5.2)
TABLE III: Performance comparison on D-Negation test set.
Method
val
testA
testB
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
@1
@5
@10
Grounding-DINO-Full
53.1
89.7
95.1
59.2
91.0
95.5
46.7
87.8
93.6
Grounding-DINO-Full(+Ours)
51.6
87.2
93.3
60.3
92.6
96.8
48.4
88.2
95.0
APE-C
79.8
-
-
86.8
-
-
76.2
-
-
APE-C(+Ours)
80.5
-
-
87.8
-
-
77.1
-
-
TABLE IV: Performance comparison of different methods on RefCOCO val, testA, and testB datasets.
Table 8
Fig. 4: Qualitative Comparison of Model Outputs. Visualization of the APE model’s outputs on representative examples after fine-tuning with our proposed method. For clarity, the prompt tokens within bounding boxes are displayed beneath each image.
Method
Full
Presence
Absence
D-Negation
Baseline(APE-C)
27.8
27.9
27.3
78.6
+ D-Negation + GOBL
32.5 (+4.7)
32.3 (+4.4)
33.0 (+5.7)
82.8 (+3.2)
+Flick30k+ D-Negation + GOBL
32.9 (+5.1)
32.7 (+4.8)
33.5 (+6.2)
84.1 (+5.5)
TABLE VII: Performance comparison on Intra-scenario of D3 and D-Negation test datasets. Our method also performs better when using flick30k as an additional training set.
Editing Location
Full
Presence
Absence
Text Encoder
+0.7
+0.5
+1.1
Image Backbone
-0.3
-0.1
-0.7
Decoder
+1.2
+0.6
+1.3
Fusion Module
+4.7
+4.4
+5.7
TABLE VIII: Relative performance gains (%) obtained by applying negation supervision to different modules under identical training budgets.
Setting
Full
Presence
Absence
σ=3
+4.3
+4.0
+5.2
σ=5
+4.7
+4.4
+5.7
σ=7
+4.4
+4.1
+5.4
α=0.3
+4.1
+3.8
+5.0
α=0.5
+4.7
+4.4
+5.7
α=0.7
+4.2
+3.9
+5.1
TABLE IX: Sensitivity analysis of hyperparameters σ , α , and β . All experiments are conducted on APE-C with other parameters fixed to default values.
Fig. 5: Performance gain of single and combined attributes on the D3 dataset. Each attribute enhances the model’s performance, and combining multiple attributes leads to even greater improvements. As more attributes are added, the performance gain gradually decreases and eventually stabilizes.
Fig. 6: Heatmap of gains across different attributes. Each attribute enhances performance in its domain and benefits others, demonstrating transferability. The best results occur when all attributes are combined. Every attribute significantly boosts performance within its own domain, while also positively influencing the performance in other domains, demonstrating some degree of transferability. The best performance is achieved when all attributes are combined.
Tuning Module
Params(M)
Proportion(%)
Full/Presence/Absence
Fusion Only
15.7
9.0
17.8 / 17.4 / 19.0
+Decoder
26.7
15.5
15.4 / 15.9 / 16.9
+Decoder +Neck
36.6
21.1
13.4 / 13.6 / 12.9
TABLE X: Comparison of different tuning modules. Base on Grounding-DINO-Base. Performance on Intra-scenario of D3 dataset.
Model
Full
Presence
Absence
APE-B
30.0
29.9
30.3
+ Standard CL
30.9 (+0.9)
30.2 (+0.3)
31.3 (+0.8)
+ GOBL (Ours)
32.4 (+2.4)
32.2 (+2.3)
32.9 (+2.6)
APE-C
27.8
27.9
27.3
+ Standard CL
28.7 (+0.9)
28.5 (+0.6)
29.1 (+1.8)
+ GOBL (Ours)
32.5 (+4.7)
32.3 (+4.4)
33.0 (+5.7)
TABLE XI: Performance comparison on the intra-scenario split of the D3 dataset. Numbers in parentheses denote absolute improvements over the corresponding APE baseline.
Attribute
Full
Presence
Absence
APE-C
27.8
27.9
27.3
Color
30.8 (+3.0)
31.2 (+3.3)
30.2 (+2.9)
Position
30.2 (+2.4)
30.3 (+2.4)
29.2 (+1.9)
State
29.6 (+1.8)
29.9 (+2.0)
29.1 (+1.8)
Color + Position
32.1 (+4.3)
32.2 (+4.3)
31.9 (+4.6)
Position + State
30.4 (+2.6)
30.8 (+2.9)
30.0 (+2.7)
TABLE XII: Performance improvement with single and combined attributes.
Setting
Full
Presence
Absence
σ=2
+1.9
+1.8
+2.2
σ=3
+2.1
+2.0
+2.4
σ=5
+2.4
+2.3
+2.6
σ=7
+2.2
+2.1
+2.5
σ=9
+2.0
+1.9
+2.3
α=0.2
+1.8
+1.7
+2.1
TABLE XIII: Extended sensitivity analysis of hyperparameters σ , α , and β . All experiments are conducted on APE-B with other parameters fixed to default values. Results are reported as relative improvements over the APE-B baseline.
Negation is a fundamental aspect of language understanding and it is important vision-language models (VLMs) are able to process it effectively. We investigate how VLMs process negation by analysing attention patterns of different models. We draw comparisons between human gaze and attention in models when processing affirmative vs negated statements. We compare object level model attention to human eye-fixations in both binary and multary settings, evaluating with both synthetic and realistic datasets. We find models generally do not follow human-like attention patterns when resolving negation, suggesting they rely on mechanisms outside of attention. While layerwise analysis shows that PaliGemma2-3B shifts object attention to the alternative under negation, our headwise ablations suggest this is a byproduct rather than a negation processing mechanism. Additionally, we find that LLaVA-1.5-7B displays a spatial bias towards left-side objects. Our evaluation of models on downstream tasks shows that all models have a discrepancy between affirmative and negated questions highlighting the need to better understand the underlying processing of negation to close this performance gap. Code available at https://github.com/otmive/negation_attention
Beth Pearson, Michael Wray, Martha Lewis
University of Bristol · ILLC, University of Amsterdam
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities across a wide range of multimodal tasks. However, recent studies have shown that VLMs, such as CLIP, perform poorly in understanding negation expressions, which are common in natural language. In this work, we propose Omni-NegCLIP, a fine-tuned CLIP model that improves CLIP's understanding of two types of negation, namely presence-based negation and absence-based negation, which correspond to negated expressions of objects that are actually present in an image and those that may plausibly exist in an image but are in fact absent, respectively, by modifying CLIP's original InfoNCE contrastive loss. Specifically, we design a presence-based contrastive objective that pulls image embeddings closer to their original caption embeddings while pushing them away from the corresponding presence-based negated caption embeddings, and an absence-based contrastive objective that aligns image embeddings with both original and absence-based negated caption embeddings while maintaining a semantic distinction between the two text embeddings. Based on our observation that the front transformer layers of CLIP text encoder have stronger learning ability for negated text than the later layers, we fine-tune the front transformer layers of the CLIP text encoder at each training step using the combined contrastive objective. Experimental results show that, compared with pretrained CLIP, Omni-NegCLIP improves performance on presence-based negation and absence-based negation tasks by up to 52.65% and 12.50%, respectively, without sacrificing general capability in image-text retrieval and even improving it by up to 19.62%. Compared with prior works, Omni-NegCLIP demonstrates a more comprehensive ability to understand multiple types of negation tasks.
Jingqi Xu
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Dual-encoder vision-language models systematically fail at negation, scoring ''a cat without a dog'' nearly identically to ''a cat with a dog.'' We show that this failure is inherent to the single-embedding framework. Under contrastive training, single-embedding methods can at best ignore the negated concept (dilution) but never penalize its presence (rejection). We propose Know-Thy-Not (KTN), a training-free method that introduces an image-side rejection dimension to penalize the negated concept directly in the visual representation. We also introduce COCO-Confusion, the first benchmark requiring genuine rejection to succeed. Across 9 backbones, KTN improves COCO-Confusion mAP by up to +25.6 over vanilla VLMs and +9.6 over the strongest existing method.
DoYoung Kim, Changkyu Choi, Adín Ramírez Rivera +2
Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea · University of Oslo, Norway