mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can Machines Really See Objects in Images? A Study Based on Syntactic Distance and Visual Self-Referential Instances

arXiv 2606.29416 ↗First posted 28 Jun 2026cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Can a vision model truly see an object, or does it only fit surface-level visual cues? Following Wittgenstein's view that the limits of language are the limits of the world, we view a model's recognition ability as bounded by the descriptive system it has learned. In current vision models, this system is often realized through learned feature representations that exploit local statistical cues. We therefore ask whether a model can still classify correctly when such local cues provide no stable basis for distinction. We formalize this question with syntactic distance, which measures class separability through the symmetry of the operations mapping one class to the other: positive distance exposes exploitable local features, whereas zero distance requires global semantics rather than local rules. We construct a visual self-referential task in maximum-variance binary noise: positive samples contain a closed square, while negative samples contain an otherwise identical square with one flipped boundary pixel. The two classes differ in global semantics but have zero syntactic distance, making local statistical shortcuts unreliable. Experiments on ResNets and Vision Transformers reveal a consistent phase-transition phenomenon, with accuracy collapsing to random guessing once the image scale crosses a critical point and does not recover within the tested range. Larger training sets and models only delay this collapse, while globally attentive ViTs reach it earlier. These results reveal a structural capability boundary of current architectures on global-concept tasks, suggesting that general intelligence may require creating new language, not reusing an existing one.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2026.

Builds on

15 of 22 references.

References · 15

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2023RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Controlcited by 3,080
  4. 2023PaLM-E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Modelcited by 2,071
  5. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
  6. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
  7. 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
  8. 2018Recurrent World Models Facilitate Policy Evolutioncited by 785
  9. 2021Intriguing Properties of Vision Transformerscited by 446
  10. 2019Approximating CNNs with Bag-of-local-Features models works surprisingly well on ImageNetcited by 260
  11. 2024Understanding World or Predicting Future? A Comprehensive Survey of World Modelscited by 166
  12. 2017Measuring the tendency of CNNs to Learn Surface Statistical Regularitiescited by 87
3 more
  1. 2026Constructing self-referential instances for the clique problemcited by 1
  2. 2026Self-referential instances of the dominating set problem are irreduciblecited by 1
  3. 2026Solution independence and self-referential instancescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.