mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Similarity Is Not Logic: Factored Inference for Dual-Encoder Vision-Language Models

arXiv 2607.23052 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026cs.CV cs.CL cs.LGcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Dual-encoder vision-language models (VLMs) expose a similarity interface that enables zero-shot retrieval but fails compositional constraints: queries like "umbrella and no person" retrieve images containing both, even when concept detection is reliable. We trace this to an interface-level Bag-of-Concepts effect, where similarity scores approximate mean pooling of concept evidence regardless of operators. Although operator-dependent signals exist in text embeddings, they are too weak or misaligned to affect rankings. Fine-tuning does not reliably resolve this failure because the dominant bottleneck is how similarity aggregates evidence rather than what encoders represent. We propose factored inference, which separates evidence extraction from constraint execution, and introduce LCSE (Logic-Constrained Score Editing), a training-free method that executes constraints externally using concept scores from frozen encoders. We also introduce FACTOR-Bench, where LCSE achieves 85.5% accuracy versus 73.2% for the best fine-tuned baseline, 90.7% when applied to SigLIP 2, and improves NegBench COCO MCQ accuracy from 27.2% to 65.2% while preserving retrieval performance.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 26 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

Builds on

26 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Advancing Compositional Awareness in CLIP with Efficient Fine-Tuning30 May
  2. 2025Vision-Language Models Do Not Understand Negation16 Jan
  3. 2024The Hard Positive Truth about Vision-Language Compositionality26 Sep
  4. 2024Two Effects, One Trigger: On the Modality Gap, Object Bias, and Information Imbalance in Contrastive Vision-Language Models11 Apr
  5. 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionality26 Jun
  6. 2022CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?13 Dec
  7. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?4 Oct

Other references · 19

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  3. 2021Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervisioncited by 3,848
  4. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,048
  5. 2021Conceptual 12M: Pushing Web-Scale Image-Text Pre-Training To Recognize Long-Tail Visual Conceptscited by 1,209
  6. 2025SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Featurescited by 1,127
  7. 2023ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoningcited by 591
  8. 2022Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionalitycited by 523
  9. 2022Visual Programming: Compositional visual reasoning without trainingcited by 507
  10. 2022VL-CheckList: Evaluating Pre-trained Vision-Language Models with Objects, Attributes and Relationscited by 113
  11. 2022Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Modelscited by 101
  12. 2025CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modallycited by 30
7 more
  1. 2022ComCLIP: Training-Free Compositional Image and Text Matchingcited by 26
  2. 2025Know "No" Better: A Data-Driven Approach for Enhancing Negation Awareness in CLIPcited by 26
  3. 2025Is CLIP ideal? No. Can we fix it? Yes!cited by 20
  4. 2024How and where does CLIP process negation?cited by 16
  5. 2025NegVQA: Can Vision Language Models Understand Negation?cited by 12
  6. 2025MuSLR: Multimodal Symbolic Logical Reasoningcited by 7
  7. 2025A Good CREPE needs more than just Sugar: Investigating Biases in Compositional Vision-Language Benchmarkscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Adding simple structure at inference improves Vision-Language Compositionality
  2. 2026Revisiting Compositionality in Dual-Encoder Vision-Language Models: The Role of Inference
  3. 2026Inference-Time Structural Reasoning for Compositional Vision-Language Understanding
  4. 2026Atomic Visual Entailment: Enhancing Zero-Shot Vision-Language Reasoning through Atomic Fact Decomposition and Learned Selection
  5. 2025PairBench: Are Vision-Language Models Reliable at Comparing What They See?
  6. 2023Revisiting the Role of Language Priors in Vision-Language Models
  7. 2023Zero-shot Referring Expression Comprehension via Structural Similarity Between Images and Captions
  8. 2025Explaining Similarity in Vision-Language Encoders with Weighted Banzhaf Interactions