Seeing Syntax: Uncovering Syntactic Learning Limitations in Vision-Language Models
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Vision-language models (VLMs), serve as foundation models for multi-modal applications such as image captioning and text-to-image generation. Recent studies have highlighted limitations in VLM text encoders, particularly in areas like compositionality and semantic understanding, though the underlying reasons for these limitations remain unclear. In this work, we aim to address this gap by analyzing the syntactic information, one of the fundamental linguistic properties, encoded by the text encoders of VLMs. We perform a thorough analysis comparing VLMs with different objective functions, parameter size and training data size, and with uni-modal language models (ULMs) in their ability to encode syntactic knowledge. Our findings suggest that ULM text encoders acquire syntactic information more effectively than those in VLMs. The syntactic information learned by VLM text encoders is shaped primarily by the pre-training objective, which plays a more crucial role than other factors such as model architecture, model size, or the volume of pre-training data. Models exhibit different layer-wise trends where CLIP performance dropped across layers while for other models, middle layers are rich in encoding syntactic knowledge.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 6 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Dec 2024.
Builds on
6 of 46 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2024SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterations17 Jun
- 2024Do Vision-Language Models Understand Compound Nouns?30 Mar
- 2022VL-CheckList: Evaluating Pre-trained Vision-Language Models with Objects, Attributes and Relations1 Jul
Other references · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.
- 2025Enhancing Compositional Reasoning in CLIP via Reconstruction and Alignment of Text Descriptionscited by 2
- 2025COCO-Tree: Compositional Hierarchical Concept Trees for Enhanced Reasoning in Vision Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026Omni-NegCLIP: Enhancing CLIP with Front-Layer Contrastive Fine-Tuning for Comprehensive Negation Understandingcited by 1
- 2026Omni-NegCLIP: Enhancing CLIP with Front-Layer Contrastive Fine-Tuning for Comprehensive Negation Understanding31 Mar 2026
- 2025Enhancing Compositional Reasoning in CLIP via Reconstruction and Alignment of Text Descriptions18 Oct 2025
- 2025COCO-Tree: Compositional Hierarchical Concept Trees for Enhanced Reasoning in Vision Language Models13 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Text encoders bottleneck compositionality in contrastive vision-language models
- 2024Exploring the Frontier of Vision-Language Models: A Survey of Current Methodologies and Future Directions
- 2025Bridging Hidden States in Vision-Language Models
- 2023Synthesize, Diagnose, and Optimize: Towards Fine-Grained Vision-Language Understanding
- 2025Hidden in plain sight: VLMs overlook their visual representations
- 2024Causal Graphical Models for Vision-Language Compositional Understanding
- 2024Building and better understanding vision-language models: insights and future directions
- 2024Exploring How Generative MLLMs Perceive More Than CLIP with the Same Vision Encoder