mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Common Data Properties Limit Object-Attribute Binding in CLIP

arXiv 2507.07985 ↗First posted 10 Jul 2025cs.CVcited by 4

On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP

Abstract (arXiv)

Contrastive vision-language models like CLIP are used for a large variety of applications, such as zero-shot classification or as vision encoder for multi-modal models. Despite their popularity, their representations show major limitations. For instance, CLIP models learn bag-of-words representations and, as a consequence, fail to distinguish whether an image is of ``a yellow submarine and a blue bus'' or ``a blue submarine and a yellow bus''. Previous attempts to fix this issue added hard negatives during training or modified the architecture, but failed to resolve the problem in its entirety. We suspect that the missing insights to solve the binding problem for CLIP are hidden in arguably the most important part of learning algorithms: the data. In this work, we fill this gap by rigorously identifying the influence of data properties on CLIP's ability to learn binding using a synthetic dataset. We find that common properties of natural data such as low attribute density, incomplete captions, and the saliency bias, a tendency of human captioners to describe the object that is ``most salient'' to them, have a detrimental effect on binding performance. In contrast to common belief, we find that neither scaling the batch size, i.e., implicitly adding more hard negatives, nor explicitly creating hard negatives enables CLIP to learn reliable binding. Only when the data expresses our identified data properties does CLIP learn almost perfect binding.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 28 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2025.

Builds on

28 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Object-centric Binding in Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining19 Feb
  2. 2024Two Effects, One Trigger: On the Modality Gap, Object Bias, and Information Imbalance in Contrastive Vision-Language Models11 Apr
  3. 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionality26 Jun
  4. 2023Linear Spaces of Meanings: Compositional Structures in Vision-Language Models28 Feb
  5. 2022CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?13 Dec
  6. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?4 Oct

Other references · 22

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,694
  3. 2022Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latentscited by 6,539
  4. 2021GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Modelscited by 3,595
  5. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,048
  6. 2016CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoningcited by 1,445
  7. 2021Conceptual 12M: Pushing Web-Scale Image-Text Pre-Training To Recognize Long-Tail Visual Conceptscited by 1,209
  8. 2022Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learningcited by 1,163
  9. 2022PaLI: A Jointly-Scaled Multilingual Language-Image Modelcited by 762
  10. 2024PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfercited by 679
  11. 2021RegionCLIP: Region-based Language-Image Pretrainingcited by 612
  12. 2021Supervision Exists Everywhere: A Data Efficient Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training Paradigmcited by 405
10 more
  1. 2023Demystifying CLIP Datacited by 265
  2. 2022Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Modelscited by 101
  3. 2023Dense and Aligned Captions (DAC) Promote Compositional Reasoning in VL Modelscited by 72
  4. 2022Teaching Structured Vision&Language Concepts to Vision&Language Modelscited by 71
  5. 2024TripletCLIP: Improving Compositional Reasoning of CLIP via Synthetic Vision-Language Negativescited by 57
  6. 2018Morpho-MNIST: Quantitative Assessment and Diagnostics for Representation Learningcited by 56
  7. 2024SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterationscited by 42
  8. 2023PUG: Photorealistic and Semantically Controllable Synthetic Data for Representation Learningcited by 31
  9. 2025CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modallycited by 30
  10. 2022When are Lemons Purple? The Concept Association Bias of Vision-Language Modelscited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025CLIP Under the Microscope: A Fine-Grained Analysis of Multi-Object Representation
  2. 2025Analyzing CLIP's Performance Limitations in Multi-Object Scenarios: A Controlled High-Resolution Study
  3. 2024Toward a Holistic Evaluation of Robustness in CLIP Models
  4. 2024Exploring How Generative MLLMs Perceive More Than CLIP with the Same Vision Encoder
  5. 2023Text encoders bottleneck compositionality in contrastive vision-language models
  6. 2024Calibrating Multi-modal Representations: A Pursuit of Group Robustness without Annotations
  7. 2024Magnet: We Never Know How Text-to-Image Diffusion Models Work, Until We Learn How Vision-Language Models Function
  8. 2026Sparse CLIP: Co-Optimizing Interpretability and Performance in Contrastive Learning