Contrastive vision-language (V&L) models remain a popular choice for various applications. However, several limitations have emerged, most notably the limited ability of V&L models to learn compositional representations. Prior methods often addressed this limitation by generating custom training data to obtain hard negative samples. Hard negatives have been shown to improve performance on compositionality tasks, but are often specific to a single benchmark, do not generalize, and can cause substantial degradation of basic V&L capabilities such as zero-shot or retrieval performance, rendering them impractical. In this work we follow a different approach. We identify two root causes that limit compositionality performance of V&Ls: 1) Long training captions do not require a compositional representation; and 2) The final global pooling in the text and image encoders lead to a complete loss of the necessary information to learn binding in the first place. As a remedy, we propose two simple solutions: 1) We obtain short concept centric caption parts using standard NLP software and align those with the image; and 2) We introduce a parameter-free cross-modal attention-pooling to obtain concept centric visual embeddings from the image encoder. With these two changes and simple auxiliary contrastive losses, we obtain SOTA performance on standard compositionality benchmarks, while maintaining or improving strong zero-shot and retrieval capabilities. This is achieved without increasing inference cost. We release the code for this work at https://github.com/saic-fi/concept_centric_clip.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Method overview . (a) SigLIP uses a learnable query token in combination with an attention layer to pool the visual tokens into a single token. Aligning only global representations hampers the learning of a compositional representation. (b) Similar to SigLIP, our method aligns the global representations v and t . To simplify learning of a compositional representation, our method extends SigLIP by first, pooling the text encoder output tokens into concept embeddings {ck} , which are used to attention-pool concept-specific information from the visual tokens Vˉ , resulting in v^(c) . v^(ck) and the corresponding ck are aligned using Lxac . Furthermore, the global visual representation v is aligned with all ck via Lnpc , a multi-positive variant of SigLIP loss. Similarly, the global image and text representations v and t are aligned via Lcontrastive .
Model
Training data
Train from scratch
Composition-aware
CE-CLIP [ 35 ]
MSCOCO
NegCLIP [ 33 ]
MSCOCO
CLIC [ 24 ]
LAION-1.5B
DAC [ 4 ]
CC3M
SLVC [ 5 ]
Table 1: Training data of baselines. Summary of baseline methods and their corresponding training datasets, excluding the original CLIP and SigLIP models. The last column indicates whether the provided checkpoints were trained from scratch (✓).
Models
SugarCrepe
SugarCrepe++
ImNet1K
Flickr30k
MSCOCO
DOCCI
IIW
Average
Add
Replace
Swap
Replace
Swap
I2T
TOT
I2T
TOT
SigLIP ViT-B/16
86.5
84.1
65.8
73.8
62.8
48.0
34.7
76.1
95.2
78.9
58.9
75.3
70.0
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/32
73.0
80.0
62.7
69.5
60.5
45.7
27.4
63.3
89.0
65.4
47.1
69.5
62.8
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/16
72.7
80.4
62.5
70.1
60.2
43.8
23.9
68.4
90.9
67.6
50.4
71.3
63.5
Fine-grained models
Table 2: Performance comparison of ViT-B-based models . C 2 LIP achieves consistently high performance on SugarCrepe and SugarCrepe++ compared to the composition-aware models, despite only relying on regular captions during training. Additionally, our model is able to maintain and improve the retrieval and zero-shot capabilities of the original SigLIP, achieving the best overall score.
Model
SugarCrepe
SugarCrepe++
Average
Replace
Swap
Replace-I2T
Replace-TOT
Swap-I2T
Swap-TOT
SigLIP ViT-B/16
86.7
71.5
75.5
64.2
56.3
46.4
66.8
CE-CLIP
88.8
7 7.0
52.0
64.2
32.3
36.3
58.4
NegCLIP
85.9
75.4
67.1
70.7
55.0
5 0.3
6 7.4
CLIC
86.6
74.0
7 5.9
52.4
6 2.2
31.2
63.7
DAC-SAM
85.9
75.1
44.3
56.0
33.5
25.4
53.3
Table 3: Attribute-binding performance comparison. We compare the accuracy of C 2 LIP with composition-aware baselines on attribute replacement and swapping experiments of SugarCrepe and SugarCrepe++. Our model consistently outperforms the competing baselines on most tasks and attains the best overall score. Moreover, previous methods rely on hard negatives to induce a compositional representation, which often harms generalization to natural data and leads to a considerable performance drop on SugarCrepe++. In contrast, C 2 LIP maintains high performance on all metrics, further highlighting the strength of our proposed approach.
Models
SugarCrepe
SugarCrepe++
ImNet1K
Flickr30k
MSCOCO
DOCCI
IIW
Average
Add
Replace
Swap
Replace
Swap
I2T
TOT
I2T
TOT
Multi-task SOTA
BLIP-B
92.2
84.1
73.6
76.7
86.0
52.1
41.3
49.2
97.2
79.1
51.6
72.4
71.3
FLAVA
79.6
84.9
73.8
74.3
75.0
56.6
51.0
56.9
91.8
73.9
48.3
72.9
69.9
SigLIP2-ViT-B/16
89.0
86.0
71.9
77.7
69.7
57.9
42.0
78.5
96.5
82.8
62.2
78.1
74.4
Table 4: Comparison with SOTA foundation models. We compare performance of C 2 LIP with larger contrastive models (ViT-L), and SOTA models trained with multimodal/multi-task objectives (BLIP, FLAVA, SigLIP-2). Despite the substantial disadvantages in model size and training, C 2 LIP has the best performance on “Add” and “Replace” tasks of SugarCrepe, and maintains close performance on other benchmarks. On average our model is only 1.7 percentage points below the best model, CLIPS, which has 5x more parameters.
Figure 2: Change in attention when using C 2 LIP compared to SigLIP. We visualize the difference in attention between C 2 LIP and SigLIP to the visual tokens given a caption and an image. Higher attention for C 2 LIP is shown as green . Lower attention for C 2 LIP indicated with violet . White means no change. (a) Black regions that are not a sweater get reduced attention, the sweater gets more or unchanged attention. (b) The background, the cups and beer cans get attended less after training with our method, while attention to the green tablecloth increases or stays the same.
Training Configurations
SugarCrepe
Flickr8K
Replace
Swap
Add
Average
Object
Attribute
Relation
Object
Attribute
Object
Attribute
Original SigLIP ViT-B/16
95.3
86.7
70.3
60.0
71.5
89.1
83.8
79.5
94.9
+ fine-tuned on CC3M
95.8
87.4
73.5
65.3
74.2
88.9
87.0
81.7
95.2
+ npc
96.7 (+0.9)
89.7 (+2.3)
78.5 (+5.0)
66.5 (+1.2)
78.5 (+4.3)
93.0 (+4.1)
93.9 (+6.9)
85.3 (+3.6)
96.3 (+1.1)
+ xac ( full )
96.7 (+0.9)
89.2 (+1.8)
78.9 (+5.4)
67.3 (+2.0)
78.8 (+4.6)
93.5 (+4.6)
94.9 (+7.9)
85.6 (+3.9)
96.4 (+1.2)
Table 5: Training objective ablation. Improvements in (green) with respect to the variant fine-tuned on CC3M. npc : noun-phrase loss, xac : cross-attended concept-aware loss. Both components lead to significant gains.
Model
SugarCrepe
SugarCrepe++
Replace
Swap
Add
Average
Replace
Swap
Average
SigLIP-ViT-B-16
84.1
65.8
86.5
79.5
73.8
48.0
63.5
C 2 LIP
89.1
75.2
93.3
86.3
79.7
55.2
69.9
LLaVA-SigLIP
86.9
77.0
85.0
83.5
76.5
55.4
68.1
LLaVA-C 2 LIP
86.8
78.5
85.0
83.9
77.6
57.8
69.7
Table 6: Performance of VLM using C 2 LIP vision encoder. We follow the LLaVa [ 20 ] recipe to train VLMs with frozen SigLIP and C 2 LIP image encoders, resulting in LLaVA-SigLIP and LLaVA-C 2 LIP, respectively. LLaVA-C 2 LIP shows improvements on compositionality, demonstrating that the vision encoder trained with our proposed concept-centric approach also benefits the VLM that utilizes it.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Training data
Train from scratch
Composition-aware
CE-CLIP [ 35 ]
MSCOCO
NegCLIP [ 33 ]
MSCOCO
CLIC [ 24 ]
LAION-1.5B
DAC [ 4 ]
CC3M
SLVC [ 5 ]
Appendix
Table A1 : Baseline methods. Summary of baseline methods and their corresponding training datasets. The last column indicates whether the provided checkpoints were trained from scratch (✓).
λhnc
λxac
SugarCrepe Average Accuracy
0.5
0.5
84.6
0.5
0.1
85.2
0.5
0.01
85.2
1
0.5
85.1
1
0.01
85.6
Appendix
Table A2 : Ablation of trade-off hyperparameters in the objective function. We experimented with different values of λhnc & λxac showing our proposed method incurs little sensitivity to these hyperparameters.
Models
Replace
Swap
Add
Average
Obj
Attr
Rel
Avg
Obj
Attr
Avg
Obj
Attr
Avg
SigLIP ViT-B/16
95.3
86.7
70.3
84.1
60.0
71.5
65.8
89.1
83.8
86.5
79.5
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/32
90.9
80.0
69.2
80.0
61.2
64.1
62.7
77.2
68.8
73.0
73.1
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/16
93.5
81.1
66.7
80.4
60.0
65.0
62.5
78.5
66.9
72.7
73.1
FG-CLIP
9 5.9
87.1
72.2
85.1
66.5
73.3
69.9
87.6
81.8
84.7
80.6
FineCLIP
95.6
85.2
75.0
85.3
63.3
70.3
66.8
90.0
80.8
85.4
80.0
Appendix
Table A3 : SugarCrepe compositionality benchmark – all subtasks . The results in this table are summarized in Tab. 2 of the main paper. We compare the accuracy of C 2 LIP with baseline methods on different tasks. On average, C 2 LIP is the second best method, only 0.8 percentage points below DAC-LLM, while being trained on much less data, without custom compositional captions.
Models
Replace - I2T
Replace - TOT
Swap - I2T
Swap - TOT
Average
Obj
Attr
Rel
Avg
Obj
Attr
Rel
Avg
Obj
Attr
Avg
Obj
Attr
Avg
SigLIP ViT-B/16
91.2
75.5
54.8
73.8
79.2
64.2
45.0
62.8
39.6
56.3
48.0
22.9
46.4
34.7
57.5
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/32
86.7
65.6
56.3
69.5
83.7
59.3
38.6
60.5
46.1
45.2
45.7
19.1
35.6
27.4
53.6
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/16
89.6
67.6
53.2
70.1
84.4
57.2
39.0
60.2
39.2
48.4
43.8
16.3
31.4
23.9
52.6
FG-CLIP
9 2.6
7 6.8
58.0
75.8
90.6
67.8
44.2
67.5
47.8
55.3
51.5
29.4
47.0
38.2
6 0.9
FineCLIP
90.8
70.7
57.0
72.8
91.3
67.9
47.0
68.7
39.6
48.2
43.9
20.8
32.7
26.8
56.6
Appendix
Table A4 : SugarCrepe++ compositionality benchmark – all subtasks . The results in this table are summarized in Tab. 2 of the main paper. We compare the accuracy of C 2 LIP with baseline methods on different compositionality tasks. SugarCrepe++ addresses the limitation of the SugarCrepe benchmark, where the positive and negative captions are “hackable” by using custom training data created using similar rules. Here we observe significant performance drops from the baseline methods, while our model, which maintains generalization capabilities, achieves the best result overall.
Models
MSCOCO
Flickr30k
DOCCI
IIW
Average
t2i
i2t
t2i
i2t
t2i
i2t
t2i
i2t
SigLIP ViT-B/16
72.4
85.4
92.3
98.0
35.8
8 2.0
53.0
97.5
77.1
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/32
56.0
74.9
83.4
94.6
27.1
67.1
44.7
94.3
67.8
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/16
58.4
76.7
85.6
96.2
29.3
71.5
46.7
95.9
70.0
FG-CLIP
71.4
85.5
9 3.0
9 8.6
33.9
79.4
52.5
98.7
76.6
FineCLIP
7 3.7
84.2
90.2
96.7
27.9
61.9
44.6
89.5
71.1
Appendix
Table A5 : Zero-shot retrieval benchmarks – all subtasks . The results in this table are summarized in Tab. 2 of the main paper. We record Recall@5 metrics of all models on text-to=image (t2i) and image-to-text (i2t) tasks, across two standard retrieval benchmarks: MSCOCO and Flickr30K, and two fine-grained retrieval benchmarks: DOCCI and Image-in-words (IIW). It can be observed that C 2 LIP can maintain or improve the performance of the original base model across all tasks, with the best average score.
Model
ImageNet1K
Food-101
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
SUN397
Cars
Aircraft
DTD
Pets
Caltech-101
Flowers
Average
SigLIP ViT-B/16
76.1
91.6
92.3
72.2
69.9
90.9
4 3.8
6 4.7
9 4.1
88.0
8 6.0
7 9.0
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/32
63.3
83.9
89.8
64.3
63.2
59.7
19.6
44.0
87.5
83.8
66.5
66.0
CLIP (OpenAI) ViT-B/16
68.4
88.8
90.8
67.0
65.5
64.7
24.5
45.2
89.2
84.0
71.5
69.0
FG-CLIP
69.0
85.2
93.9
76.4
71.2
84.2
24.4
57.2
90.5
86.2
70.1
73.5
FineCLIP
55.8
60.1
9 4.3
69.0
55.9
6.3
10.7
41.6
57.9
85.4
41.4
52.6
DreamLIP-3m
31.6
23.6
75.7
43.7
41.3
3.5
1.6
18.8
28.9
70.3
18.5
32.5
Appendix
Table A6 : Zero-shot classification benchmarks . We evaluate classification accuracies of C 2 LIP and the baselines on 11 standard zero-shot classification benchmarks. We observe significantly better performance of our model compared the composition-aware baselines in general, particularly on the challenging Cars and Aircraft benchmarks where the classes are actually sub-classes of the same object category.
Contrastively trained vision-language models like CLIP, have made remarkable progress in learning joint image-text representations, but still face challenges in compositional understanding. They often exhibit a "bag-of-words" behavior--struggling to capture the object relations, attribute-object bindings, and word order dependencies. This limitation arises not only from the reliance on global, single-vector representations for optimization, but also from the insufficient exploitation and modeling of the rich compositional information inherently present in paired image text data. In this work, we propose MACCO (MAsked Compositional Concept MOdeling), a framework that masks compositional concepts in one modality and reconstructs them conditioned on the full contextual information from the other, enabling the model to capture and align cross-modal compositional structures more effectively. To facilitate this process, we introduce two auxiliary objectives that jointly align and regularize masked features both inter-modally and intra-modally. Extensive experiments on five compositional benchmarks, along with in-depth analyses, demonstrate that our approach not only significantly enhances compositionality in VLMs but also improves their ability to capture syntactic structure and linguistic information. Additionally, the improved compositionality also benefits text-to-image generation and multimodal large language model. Code is available at https://github.com/hiker-lw/MACCO.
Wei Li, Zhen Huang, Xinmei Tian
MoE Key Laboratory of Brain-inspired Intelligent Perception and Cognition, University of Science and Technology of China · Independent Researcher
Vision-language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance across compositional reasoning benchmarks, which require reasoning over semantic perturbations of objects, attributes, relations, and their interactions. However, our controlled analysis reveals that existing compositionality-aware VLMs exhibit element-specific biases, often underperforming vanilla CLIP on certain compositional elements. To address this, we propose Compositional Scene Graph-guided CLIP (CS-CLIP), which uses scene graphs to identify compositional elements and construct structured negatives via selective masking. We further retain negatives that are most contradictory to the original caption, forcing the model to rely on compositional structure rather than surface cues. CS-CLIP achieves state-of-the-art compositional reasoning with robust performance across compositional elements. It also preserves general vision-language capabilities such as cross-modal retrieval and downstream visual reasoning, while requiring fewer training samples than prior methods.
Contrastive vision-language models continue to be the dominant approach for image-text retrieval. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) trains two neural networks to align their image and text embeddings in a shared latent space. As a challenging case-study for neurosymbolic AI, recent results evaluating CLIP on negated or paraphrased text have shown mixed performance as these are difficult to define formally for text data. Negation produces the opposite meaning using various possible but small lexical changes. Paraphrasing may use very different textual expressions to denote essentially the same thing. As a result, learning of paraphrasing and negation together poses a significant challenge because of the above mismatch between changes in syntax and intended meaning expected to be captured by distances in embedding space. This paper proposes a new CLIP contrastive loss function capable of balancing the requirements of having both paraphrasing and negation. It applies training triplets consisting of original, paraphrased and negated text generated by multiple large language models to the evaluation of CLIP models. The approach, called SemCLIP, aims to learn semantically-relevant and simple embeddings, placing paraphrased captions nearer to the original image embeddings while at the same time pushing negated captions farther away. Empirically, SemCLIP is shown to be capable of preserving roughly the same performance as CLIP augmented with either negation or paraphrasing. Although direct comparisons are difficult to make because the problem of learning with both negation and paraphrasing is different, an expected benefit of SemCLIP should be robustness when applied zero-shot to downstream image classification tasks. Our experiments confirm such robustness as measured by difference in accuracy (mean-accuracy delta) between original and negated captions on five downstream datasets.
Kwun Ho Ngan, Saman Sadeghi Afgeh, Joe Townsend +1
Fujitsu Research of Europe · United Kingdom · City St George’s, University of London