mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Foveated Probes Recover Localized Binding Information in Vision Foundation Models

arXiv 2608.00726 ↗First posted 1 Aug 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Frozen vision foundation models are commonly evaluated through a single global image embedding, but this interface can conflate missing information with information lost at readout time. We study this distinction by keeping a pretrained vision encoder frozen and varying only the readout applied to its final patch tokens. We compare standard global readouts against a lightweight foveated readout, which attention-pools patch tokens using a learned or question-conditioned query, and against an oracle readout with access to the annotated target region. We evaluate these interfaces on three localized binding problems: a controlled synthetic color--shape binding task under clutter, a color-free crowded shape-detection variant, and a GQA-derived natural-image task where paired questions ask for the colors of different same-category objects in the same image. Global readouts perform near perfectly when the synthetic target appears alone, but collapse under clutter and counterfactual target edits, whereas the foveated readout recovers most of the oracle-accessible signal. On the GQA-derived task, question-independent global image vectors improve only modestly over question-only priors, while question-conditioned foveation substantially improves paired localized color accuracy. A counterfactual nuisance-to-signal ratio explains the synthetic failures: global pooling dilutes localized label-changing evidence while exposing the probe to nuisance variation from irrelevant objects. These results indicate that apparent spatial blindness in frozen vision models can arise from the global embedding interface rather than from an absence of spatial information in the frozen patch tokens.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.

Builds on

19 of 29 references.

References · 19

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,109
  4. 2016Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotationscited by 2,656
  5. 2015Show, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attentioncited by 1,423
  6. 2024Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMscited by 735
  7. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
  8. 2021Extract Free Dense Labels from CLIPcited by 583
  9. 2021DenseCLIP: Language-Guided Dense Prediction with Context-Aware Promptingcited by 532
  10. 2022Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionalitycited by 529
  11. 2023What's "up" with vision-language models? Investigating their struggle with spatial reasoningcited by 254
  12. 2023SCLIP: Rethinking Self-Attention for Dense Vision-Language Inferencecited by 170
7 more
  1. 2022ReCLIP: A Strong Zero-Shot Baseline for Referring Expression Comprehensioncited by 120
  2. 2022VL-CheckList: Evaluating Pre-trained Vision-Language Models with Objects, Attributes and Relationscited by 114
  3. 2022Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Modelscited by 102
  4. 2025CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modallycited by 31
  5. 2024The Hard Positive Truth about Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 22
  6. 2025Refining CLIP's Spatial Awareness: A Visual-Centric Perspectivecited by 13
  7. 2025Does Data Scaling Lead to Visual Compositional Generalization?cited by 13

Built on by

Not cited yet.