Dual-encoder Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as CLIP are often characterized as bag-of-words systems due to their poor performance on compositional benchmarks. We argue that this limitation may stem less from deficient representations than from the standard inference protocol based on global cosine similarity. First, through controlled diagnostic experiments, we show that explicitly enforcing fine-grained region-segment alignment at inference dramatically improves compositional performance without updating pretrained encoders. We then introduce a lightweight transformer that learns such alignments directly from frozen patch and token embeddings. Comparing against full fine-tuning and prior end-to-end compositional training methods, we find that although these approaches improve in-domain retrieval, their gains do not consistently transfer under distribution shift. In contrast, learning localized alignment over frozen representations matches full fine-tuning on in-domain retrieval while yielding substantial improvements on controlled out-of-domain compositional benchmarks. These results identify global embedding matching as a key bottleneck in dual-encoder VLMs and highlight the importance of alignment mechanisms for robust compositional generalization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Vision-language compositional reasoning requires fine-grained alignment between textual segments describing objects, attributes, and relations and their corresponding image regions (bottom). In contrast, standard dual-encoder VLM inference relies on global embedding matching, reducing image–text similarity to a single cosine operation between pooled representations (top). This discrepancy highlights a structural mismatch between the localized alignment required for compositional binding and the global matching mechanism typically used at inference.
Figure 2: Examples from the BiSCoR-Ctrl dataset. From left to right: instances from the Color , Size , Material , and Quantity categories (the last containing 8 objects). Each instance consists of two image–caption pairs: a correct pair (top image and caption) and a hard negative pair (bottom image and caption).
Model
Average
Categorie s
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
CLIP
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.7
3.3
+ SGI
24.9
76.5
4.7
15.7
2.5
PE
8.5
5.9
10.9
7.7
9.4
+ SGI
44.7
91.3
16.9
55.5
15.3
PE-G
3.8
5.8
1.0
2.6
5.8
Table 1: Results for the diagnostic experiments on the BiSCoR-Ctrl dataset. We provide the average group score obtained by each model using global embedding similarity and SGI. We also provide the group score for all the categories of the dataset.
Backbone
Method
Training
In-domain
Out-of-domain
data
SugarCrepe
BiVLC
BiSCoR-Ctrl
CLIP
Base
Pretrained
73.0 (63.3)
36.8 (13.7)
1.4
FT
COCO
81.0 (68.9)
47.5 (20.9)
1.4
TROHN-Img
85.5 (72.0)
57.5 (27.9)
1.9
TF Global
COCO
73.2 (63.5)
38.4 (11.4)
1.2
TROHN-Img
82.2 (68.8)
49.0 (15.9)
1.2
Table 2: Main results comparing full fine-tuning (FT), a transformer over frozen global embeddings (TF Global ), and a transformer over frozen patch/token embeddings (TF Local ). Results are reported as accuracy on SugarCrepe and group score on bidirectional retrieval benchmarks ( BiVLC , BiSCoR-Ctrl ); Swap performance for SugarCrepe and BiVLC is shown in brackets. While FT and TF Local improve in-domain performance, TF Local yields markedly stronger gains under distribution shift.
Model
Training data
SugarCrepe
BiVLC
BiSCoR-Ctrl
CLIP
Pretrained
73.0 (63.3)
36.8 (13.7)
1.4
NegCLIP
COCO †
83.6 (76.6)
44.9 (18.7)
1.8
TripletCLIP
CC3M/12M
82.6 (71.9)
35.2 (9.8)
1.2
FSC-CLIP
COCO †
85.1 (77.6)
46.5 (19.2)
1.2
X-VLM
COCO + Others
81.9 (67.4)
40.9 (12.3)
1.7
FineCLIP
COCO †
80.6 (68.2)
39.4 (8.6)
1.4
Table 3: Comparison between end-to-end compositional training methods and alignment learning. We report accuracy on SugarCrepe and group score on BiVLC and BiSCoR-Ctrl ; Swap results for SugarCrepe and BiVLC are shown in brackets. Training data is indicated for each method ( † denotes dataset extensions with hard negatives or similarity-based sampling). While several end-to-end approaches improve in-domain benchmarks, gains do not consistently transfer to BiSCoR-Ctrl , whereas alignment learning over frozen representations yields stronger improvements under distribution shift.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Example of a BiSCoR instance after loading the dataset.
Figure 4: An example for our two text segmenting strategies. As can be seen, fine-grained adds two more segments to coarse-grained text segments.
Model
BiSCoR-Ctrl
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
Random
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
CLIP
12.8
5.3
2.0
2.8
8.1
0.4
8.8
2.7
0.5
11.9
7.8
3.5
Grid + FG
70.1
61.6
53.8
18.0
9.0
3.7
23.6
13.8
6.9
8.5
11.5
2.5
Grid + CG
70.1
67.4
58.3
18.0
15.8
6.6
23.6
16.6
7.7
6.9
10.7
2.1
Appendix
Table 4: Development results for CLIP base model and different SGI configurations. FG for fine-grained and CG for coarse-grained text segments. Bold for best results.
Model
BiSCoR-Ctrl
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
Random
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
PE
23.8
9.5
4.5
36.0
25.7
11.4
23.3
12.7
5.9
24.8
21.0
11.8
Grid + FG
91.2
80.9
78.2
41.7
15.1
7.6
46.2
66.8
35.8
29.0
26.6
16.4
Grid + CG
91.3
85.2
82.5
43.1
22.2
11.8
46.3
72.3
38.8
23.9
28.6
14.0
Appendix
Table 5: Development results for Perception Encoder base model and different SGI configurations. FG for fine-grained and CG for coarse-grained text segments. Bold for best results.
Model
BiSCoR-Ctrl
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
I2T
T2I
Gr.
Random
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
25.0
25.0
16.7
SigLIP 2
17.1
5.6
2.4
39.0
16.0
8.3
6.7
6.9
1.0
21.4
10.4
5.2
Grid + FG
97.1
89.6
88.6
17.7
12.4
4.1
68.9
63.4
49.7
35.0
28.1
17.7
Grid + CG
97.1
93.0
92.0
17.7
14.7
5.0
68.9
71.5
55.5
30.7
28.0
17.1
Appendix
Table 6: Development results for SigLIP 2 base model and different SGI configurations. FG for fine-grained and CG for coarse-grained text segments. Bold for best results.
Model
Average
Categorie s
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
CLIP
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.7
3.3
+ SGI
24.9
76.5
4.7
15.7
2.5
+ SGI SpaCy
25.5
74.9
5.1
18.0
3.9
PE
8.5
5.9
10.9
7.7
9.4
+ SGI
44.7
91.3
16.9
55.5
15.3
Appendix
Table 7: Results for SGI with text segments obtained with SpaCy on the BiSCoR-Ctrl dataset. We provide the average group score obtained by each model using global embedding similarity, SGI with gold annotations and SGI with SpaCy text segments. We also provide the group score for all the categories of the dataset.
Model
Dataset
Nº layers
Validation
Accuracy
TF Global
COCO
1
91.7
2
93.0
3
93.2
4
93.2
TROHN-Img
1
80.5
Appendix
Table 8: Development results for each variant and dataset with different number of layers. For validation, we provide batch accuracy. In bold, the best for each variant.
Model
SugarCrepe
Average
Replace
Swap
Add
CLIP
73.0
80.8
63.3
75.1
FT COCO
80.9
86.1
68.9
87.8
FT TROHN-img
85.5
89.4
72.0
95.2
TF Global-COCO
73.2
80.7
63.5
75.5
TF Global-TROHN-img
82.2
85.3
68.8
92.5
Appendix
Table 9: Average group score and per category for SugarCrepe divided in CLIP and PE families. In bold, the best for each family and underlined the second best.
Model
BiVLC
Average
Replace
Swap
Add
CLIP
36.8
57.3
13.7
39.6
FT COCO
47.5
69.9
20.9
51.6
FT TROHN-img
57.5
76.6
27.9
68.0
TF Global-COCO
38.4
59.9
11.4
44.0
TF Global-TROHN-img
49.0
69.1
15.9
61.9
Appendix
Table 10: Average group score and per category for BiVLC divided in CLIP and PE families. In bold, the best for each family and underlined the second best.
Model
BiSCoR-Ctrl
Average
Color
Size
Material
Quantity
CLIP
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.7
3.3
FT COCO
1.4
1.9
1.3
0.4
1.9
FT TROHN-img
1.9
5.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
TF Global-COCO
1.2
1.8
1.4
0.2
1.2
TF Global-TROHN-img
1.2
1.8
0.0
1.6
1.4
Appendix
Table 11: Average group score and per category for BiSCoR-Ctrl divided in CLIP and PE families. In bold, the best for each family and underlined the second best.
Dual-encoder vision-language models (VLMs) expose a similarity interface that enables zero-shot retrieval but fails compositional constraints: queries like "umbrella and no person" retrieve images containing both, even when concept detection is reliable. We trace this to an interface-level Bag-of-Concepts effect, where similarity scores approximate mean pooling of concept evidence regardless of operators. Although operator-dependent signals exist in text embeddings, they are too weak or misaligned to affect rankings. Fine-tuning does not reliably resolve this failure because the dominant bottleneck is how similarity aggregates evidence rather than what encoders represent. We propose factored inference, which separates evidence extraction from constraint execution, and introduce LCSE (Logic-Constrained Score Editing), a training-free method that executes constraints externally using concept scores from frozen encoders. We also introduce FACTOR-Bench, where LCSE achieves 85.5% accuracy versus 73.2% for the best fine-tuned baseline, 90.7% when applied to SigLIP 2, and improves NegBench COCO MCQ accuracy from 27.2% to 65.2% while preserving retrieval performance.
Recent vision-language models (VLMs) typically rely on a single vision encoder trained with contrastive image-text objectives, such as CLIP-style pretraining. While contrastive encoders are effective for cross-modal alignment and retrieval, self-supervised visual encoders often capture richer dense semantics and exhibit stronger robustness on recognition and understanding tasks. In this work, we investigate how to scale the fusion of these complementary visual representations for vision-language modeling. We propose CoME-VL: Complementary Multi-Encoder Vision-Language, a modular fusion framework that integrates a contrastively trained vision encoder with a self-supervised DINO encoder. Our approach performs representation-level fusion by (i) entropy-guided multi-layer aggregation with orthogonality-constrained projections to reduce redundancy, and (ii) RoPE-enhanced cross-attention to align heterogeneous token grids and produce compact fused visual tokens. The fused tokens can be injected into a decoder-only LLM with minimal changes to standard VLM pipelines. Extensive experiments across diverse vision-language benchmarks demonstrate that CoME-VL consistently outperforms single-encoder baselines. In particular, we observe an average improvement of 4.9% on visual understanding tasks and 5.4% on grounding tasks. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RefCOCO for detection while improving over the baseline by a large margin. Finally, we conduct ablation studies on layer merging, non-redundant feature mixing, and fusion capacity to evaluate how complementary contrastive and self-supervised signals affect VLM performance.
Ankan Deria, Komal Kumar, Xilin He +4
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence Abu Dhabi, UAE
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.
Hai X. Pham, David T. Hoffmann, Ricardo Guerrero +1