Joint Vision-Language Embedding models such as CLIP typically fail at understanding negation in text queries, for example, failing to distinguish "no" in the query: "a plain blue shirt with no logos". Prior work has largely addressed this limitation through data-centric approaches, fine-tuning CLIP on large-scale synthetic negation datasets. However, these efforts are commonly evaluated using retrieval-based metrics that cannot reliably reflect whether negation is actually understood. In this paper, we identify two key limitations of such evaluation metrics and investigate an alternative evaluation framework based on Multimodal LLMs-as-a-judge, which typically excel at understanding simple yes/no questions about image content, providing a fair evaluation of negation understanding in CLIP models. We then ask whether there already exists a direction in the CLIP embedding space associated with negation. We find evidence that such a direction exists, and show that it can be manipulated through test-time intervention via representation engineering to steer CLIP toward negation-aware behavior without any fine-tuning. Finally, we test negation understanding on non-common image-text samples to evaluate generalization under distribution shifts. Code is at https://github.com/fawazsammani/negation-steering
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CLIP models fail at understanding negated text queries, retrieving images that disregard negation cues.
Figure 2: Negated Text-to-Image Retrieval synthetic benchmarks introduce False Negatives, images retrieved that correctly match the query (first two images) but are not labeled as the ground-truth image (last image highlighted in green). Examples from NegBench [ 1 ]
Figure 3: ConCLIP results in collapse after finetuning, retrieving completely irrelevant images to the text query.
Figure 4: Our MLLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework for retrieval and negation. The same MLLM is used to assess both tasks.
Qwen3-VL-8B
Qwen3-VL-32B
Retrieval
Retrieval and Negation
Retrieval
Retrieval and Negation
Model
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
CLIP [ 20 ]
46.7
30.4
75.2
39.4
25.1
68.4
47.2
30.6
76.3
40.3
25.4
69.9
ConCLIP [ 22 ]
46.6
30.7
76.4
40.8
26.1
70.7
47.2
30.7
77.7
41.6
26.3
72.2
NegCLIP [ 23 ]
60.9
37.9
84.3
51.7
31.5
77.9
62.0
38.3
85.8
53.1
32.1
79.8
CLIP-CC12M [ 1 ]
49.0
31.2
76.4
42.7
26.7
70.6
49.9
31.4
78.0
43.8
27.0
72.5
Table 1: Retrieval and Negation performance of baseline models with ViT-B/32 on NegBench across two MLLMs-as-a-judge.
Model
R@1
R@5
R@10
CLIP [ 20 ]
0.24
0.47
0.59
ConCLIP [ 22 ]
0.26
0.51
0.62
NegCLIP [ 23 ]
0.37
0.64
0.74
CLIP-CC12M [ 1 ]
0.28
0.51
0.62
Table 2: Retrieval performance (Recall@K) of baseline models with ViT-B/32 on NegBench.
Method
# Negation Training Data
Without Finetuning?
Qwen3-VL-32B
Qwen3-VL-8B
Qwen3-VL-4B
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Top-1
Avg.5
Top-5
Baseline [ 20 ]
–
–
44.9
44.9
84.7
46.0
45.2
84.6
46.9
45.0
85.4
ConCLIP [ 22 ]
228K
✗
30.7
30.2
63.8
31.7
30.5
64.6
30.9
30.3
63.9
NegCLIP [ 23 ]
120K
✗
46.0
45.7
83.1
47.7
46.7
84.8
48.1
46.8
84.2
CLIP-CC12M [ 1 ]
12M
✗
53.1
49.8
88.0
55.9
50.8
89.3
55.0
50.0
88.3
Steering (Ours)
4K
✓
54.3
53.3
98.0
53.7
51.7
94.0
54.0
51.5
94.1
Table 3: Intervention using the discovered negation direction on SimpleNeg with ViT-B/32 , across three MLLMs-as-a-judge.
Figure 5: Linear classifier performance to distinguish between a caption and its negation. x-axis represents the layer number, and y-axis represents the test accuracy.
Figure 6: Qualitative examples of negated text-to-image retrieval comparing CLIP, ConCLIP, NegCLIP, CLIP-CC12M and our steering approach.
Figure 7: The ∙ represents the original captions, × their negated counterparts, and ⋆ the steered representations in the negation direction.
Figure 8: Visualizations of the non-common object synthetic benchmark. Positive images satisfy the negated query, while distractor images violate the negated constraint and test negation understanding and out-of-distribution generalization.
Figure 9: Ablation studies on the α parameter used to steer the representations. The y-axis represents the Top-1 accuracy.
Model
R@1
R@2
R@3
CLIP [ 20 ]
0.60
0.60
0.90
NegCLIP [ 23 ]
0.50
0.50
0.80
CLIP-CC12M [ 1 ]
0.50
0.60
0.90
Steering (ours)
0.80
0.80
0.90
Table 4: Retrieval performance (Recall@K) of baseline models with ViT-B/32 on the non-common objects controlled benchmark.
Figure 10: Qualitative examples of negated text-to-image retrieval comparing CLIP, ConCLIP NegCLIP, CLIP-CC12M and our steering approach on the N-COCO benchmark.
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
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) like CLIP struggle to understand negation, often embedding affirmatives and negatives similarly (e.g., matching "no dog" with dog images). Existing methods refine negation understanding via fine-tuning CLIP's text encoder, risking overfitting. In this work, we propose CLIPGlasses, a plug-and-play framework that enhances CLIP's ability to comprehend negated visual descriptions. CLIPGlasses adopts a dual-stage design: a Lens module disentangles negated semantics from text embeddings, and a Frame module predicts context-aware repulsion strength, which is integrated into a modified similarity computation to penalize alignment with negated semantics, thereby reducing false positive matches. Experiments show that CLIP equipped with CLIPGlasses achieves competitive in-domain performance and outperforms state-of-the-art methods in cross-domain generalization. Its superiority is especially evident under low-resource conditions, indicating stronger robustness across domains.
Junhao Xiao, Zhiyu Wu, Hao Lin +5
Central China Normal University · Fudan University · Huazhong University of Science and Technology +2
Contrastive vision-language models such as CLIP map semantically opposite phrases (e.g., "a dog" vs. "not a dog") to nearly identical embeddings, rendering them insensitive to negation. We attribute this failure to a phenomenon we call Representational Collapse: by tracking compositional divergence and visual alignment across the CLIP text encoder, we show that middle layers build compositional syntax, but the final layers collapse this structure as visual alignment rises, producing a syntax-blind final representation. To recover the lost negation signal without altering pretrained weights, we propose PeakPatch, a lightweight post-hoc correction system that intercepts the encoder at its compositional peak. An Embedding Correction Network (ECN) uses cross-attention to extract a negation-specific signal from the peak layer, anchored to a stable baseline, and predicts a deviation vector that re-injects the lost syntax into the final-layer embedding space. A complementary Score Correction Network (SCN) predicts bounded scalar score offsets for discriminative tasks. Both modules are trained jointly end-to-end while all CLIP parameters remain frozen, adding only 5.2M parameters (3.5% of the backbone) and preserving the standard cosine similarity interface. On NegBench, PeakPatch achieves 74.3% on COCO MCQ (+35.1 over CLIP, +17.8 over the best encoder fine-tuning method) and 65.5% on VOC MCQ, while outperforming all fine-tuning baselines on fully out-of-distribution negation retrieval despite training only 3.5% of the parameters. The corrected embeddings also transfer to text-to-image generation (+18.4 negation score) and generalize across ViT-B/32, ViT-L/14, and SigLIP backbones. Project URL: https://stevencylu.github.io/PeakPatch/.