Seeing What Tastes Good: Revisiting Multimodal Distributional Semantics in the Billion Parameter Era
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Human learning and conceptual representation is grounded in sensorimotor experience, in contrast to state-of-the-art foundation models. In this paper, we investigate how well such large-scale models, trained on vast quantities of data, represent the semantic feature norms of concrete object concepts, e.g. a ROSE is red, smells sweet, and is a flower. More specifically, we use probing tasks to test which properties of objects these models are aware of. We evaluate image encoders trained on image data alone, as well as multimodally-trained image encoders and language-only models, on predicting an extended denser version of the classic McRae norms and the newer Binder dataset of attribute ratings. We find that multimodal image encoders slightly outperform language-only approaches, and that image-only encoders perform comparably to the language models, even on non-visual attributes that are classified as "encyclopedic" or "function". These results offer new insights into what can be learned from pure unimodal learning, and the complementarity of the modalities.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2025.
Builds on
32 of 67 references.
References · 32
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,587
- 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,418
- 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,109
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2021Swin Transformer V2: Scaling Up Capacity and Resolutioncited by 1,228
- 2021SimMIM: A Simple Framework for Masked Image Modelingcited by 1,153
- 2016ConceptNet 5.5: An Open Multilingual Graph of General Knowledgecited by 1,067
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
20 more
- 2024PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfercited by 696
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2022MaxViT: Multi-Axis Vision Transformercited by 476
- 2024The Platonic Representation Hypothesiscited by 382
- 2017Advances in Pre-Training Distributed Word Representationscited by 207
- 2021Visually Grounded Reasoning across Languages and Culturescited by 189
- 2014SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models with (Genuine) Similarity Estimationcited by 172
- 2020Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semanticscited by 156
- 2022Linearly Mapping from Image to Text Spacecited by 142
- 2021Can Language Models Encode Perceptual Structure Without Grounding? A Case Study in Colorcited by 119
- 2022Human alignment of neural network representationscited by 74
- 2019Do Neural Language Representations Learn Physical Commonsense?cited by 62
- 2023Do Vision and Language Models Share Concepts? A Vector Space Alignment Studycited by 27
- 2024Dimensions underlying the representational alignment of deep neural networks with humanscited by 22
- 2017Are distributional representations ready for the real world? Evaluating word vectors for grounded perceptual meaningcited by 19
- 2024You Don't Need Domain-Specific Data Augmentations When Scaling Self-Supervised Learningcited by 16
- 2023A Method for Studying Semantic Construal in Grammatical Constructions with Interpretable Contextual Embedding Spacescited by 13
- 2022Semantic features of object concepts generated with GPT-3cited by 12
- 2018Firearms and Tigers are Dangerous, Kitchen Knives and Zebras are Not: Testing whether Word Embeddings Can Tellcited by 5
- 2018Using Sparse Semantic Embeddings Learned from Multimodal Text and Image Data to Model Human Conceptual Knowledgecited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.