mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Is Generation Required for Data-Efficient Perception?

arXiv 2512.08854 ↗First posted 9 Dec 2025cs.CV cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

It has been hypothesized that achieving the data efficiency of human visual perception requires a generative approach in which internal representations result from inverting a decoder. Yet today's most successful vision models are non-generative, relying on an encoder that maps images to representations without decoder inversion. This raises the question of whether generation is necessary for data-efficient machine perception. To address this, we study to what extent generative and non-generative methods can achieve compositional generalization, a hallmark of human data efficiency. Under a compositional generative process, we formally characterize the inductive biases required for compositional generalization in decoder-based (generative) and encoder-based (non-generative) methods. We show theoretically that the inductive biases required for an encoder are substantially more complex and generally infeasible to impose explicitly through architectural constraints or regularization. By contrast, the decoder biases take a simple form that can be enforced directly. These results suggest that compositional generalization may be substantially easier to achieve through a generative paradigm of learning and inverting a decoder rather than learning an encoder directly. We examine our theoretical findings empirically by training a range of generative and non-generative methods on synthetic image data. We find that non-generative methods often fail to generalize compositionally and require large-scale pretraining to improve generalization. By comparison, generative methods yield gains in generalization without requiring additional data.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Dec 2025.

Builds on

43 of 64 references.

References · 43

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  4. 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
  5. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  6. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
  7. 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,968
  8. 2022Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformerscited by 6,054
  9. 2025DINOv3cited by 1,414
  10. 2019Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inferencecited by 1,323
  11. 2025SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Featurescited by 1,188
  12. 2023Self-Supervised Learning from Images with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecturecited by 1,039
31 more
  1. 2020Object-Centric Learning with Slot Attentioncited by 876
  2. 2023Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Surveycited by 839
  3. 2024Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMscited by 735
  4. 2024PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfercited by 696
  5. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
  6. 2020On the Binding Problem in Artificial Neural Networkscited by 233
  7. 2021Scene Representation Transformer: Geometry-Free Novel View Synthesis Through Set-Latent Scene Representationscited by 227
  8. 2022CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?cited by 181
  9. 2023StableRep: Synthetic Images from Text-to-Image Models Make Strong Visual Representation Learnerscited by 177
  10. 2022Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Modelscited by 102
  11. 2023The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"cited by 98
  12. 2021Generalization and Robustness Implications in Object-Centric Learningcited by 81
  13. 2024No "Zero-Shot" Without Exponential Data: Pretraining Concept Frequency Determines Multimodal Model Performancecited by 75
  14. 2025Scaling Language-Free Visual Representation Learningcited by 66
  15. 2023Additive Decoders for Latent Variables Identification and Cartesian-Product Extrapolationcited by 58
  16. 2024Learning by Reconstruction Produces Uninformative Features For Perceptioncited by 55
  17. 2023Intriguing properties of generative classifierscited by 52
  18. 2023Provably Learning Object-Centric Representationscited by 45
  19. 2023Provable Compositional Generalization for Object-Centric Learningcited by 41
  20. 2023PUG: Photorealistic and Semantically Controllable Synthetic Data for Representation Learningcited by 31
  21. 2022Disentanglement with Biological Constraints: A Theory of Functional Cell Typescited by 30
  22. 2023Diffusion-TTA: Test-time Adaptation of Discriminative Models via Generative Feedbackcited by 27
  23. 2018Generalization in anti-causal learningcited by 23
  24. 2024Interaction Asymmetry: A General Principle for Learning Composable Abstractionscited by 20
  25. 2024Learning to Compose: Improving Object Centric Learning by Injecting Compositionalitycited by 13
  26. 2025Object-centric Binding in Contrastive Language-Image Pretrainingcited by 12
  27. 2024Moving Off-the-Grid: Scene-Grounded Video Representationscited by 11
  28. 2022Test-time Adaptation with Slot-Centric Modelscited by 9
  29. 2025Diffusion Classifiers Understand Compositionality, but Conditions Applycited by 7
  30. 2024How does the primate brain combine generative and discriminative computations in vision?cited by 4
  31. 2025Compositional Scene Understanding through Inverse Generative Modelingcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.