mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Limits of Binding in Dual Encoders

arXiv 2608.15971 ↗First posted 16 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.CL cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Dual-encoder models such as CLIP score an image-caption pair by a single inner product of two independently computed unit vectors, and fail at binding, often scoring near chance when asked to distinguish "a red car and a blue dog" from "a blue car and a red dog". We give a mathematical account of when this failure is necessary and when it is contingent. Working within the ideal-encoder framework proposed by Kang et al., we first show the relevant axioms are satisfiable, so every impossibility must enter through an added, checkable hypothesis. We then prove three such obstructions. Depth: for recursive role-binding codes the swap margin obeys an exact law m(D) = 2b-D in the nesting depth D, with a finite-dimension version holding up to one explicitly flagged concentration estimate; the resolvable depth grows only logarithmically in the dimension and is single-digit at CLIP scale, the nesting depth of ordinary language. Objective: architecture-free throttle theorems showing that the contrastive objective's entire reward for binding is bounded by the rate at which training contrasts a caption against its own swap, a rate that vanishes at web scale, and that exactly reversed binding costs only that rate times the mean binding margin; both are verified in simulation. Geometry: a tight smoothness-binding frontier: the closer the two swap-related captions must embed to a shared paraphrase anchor, the smaller the binding margin can be, with an exact constant. Measuring its text-only diagnostic across 18 deployed text encoders, every model sits at roughly 25-35% of its ceiling, and the induced per-item ceiling tracks SugarCrepe's subset difficulty at r = 0.99. Binding failure in deployed dual encoders is thus not a dimension or smoothness limit today, but an incentive and code-structure limit, with a proved depth ceiling that remains once those are fixed.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.

Builds on

24 of 32 references.

References · 24

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,777
  3. 2021Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervisioncited by 3,864
  4. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,109
  5. 2025SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Featurescited by 1,188
  6. 2022Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learningcited by 1,173
  7. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
  8. 2023Demystifying CLIP Datacited by 270
  9. 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 243
  10. 2025On the Theoretical Limitations of Embedding-Based Retrievalcited by 104
  11. 2023Generalization on the Unseen, Logic Reasoning and Degree Curriculumcited by 73
  12. 2023Dense and Aligned Captions (DAC) Promote Compositional Reasoning in VL Modelscited by 72
12 more
  1. 2022Teaching Structured Vision&Language Concepts to Vision&Language Modelscited by 71
  2. 2022Why is Winoground Hard? Investigating Failures in Visuolinguistic Compositionalitycited by 44
  3. 2024SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterationscited by 42
  4. 2018A theory of sequence indexing and working memory in recurrent neural networkscited by 29
  5. 2024A Percolation Model of Emergence: Analyzing Transformers Trained on a Formal Languagecited by 26
  6. 2023Discovering modular solutions that generalize compositionallycited by 23
  7. 2025Is CLIP ideal? No. Can we fix it? Yes!cited by 21
  8. 2025Bound by semanticity: universal laws governing the generalization-identification tradeoffcited by 3
  9. 2025Compositional Concept Generalization with Variational Quantum Circuitscited by 3
  10. 2025DisCoCLIP: A Distributional Compositional Tensor Network Encoder for Vision-Language Understandingcited by 3
  11. 2026Is Dimensionality a Barrier for Retrieval Models?cited by 3
  12. 2025Understanding Hardness of Vision-Language Compositionality from A Token-level Causal Lenscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.