BindCLIP: One Balanced Coupling For Compositional Vision Language Scoring
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Global vision--language similarities compress an image and a caption into one vector, preserving semantics but not which word corresponds to which region or how those regions are arranged; a model can recognize every word and object yet prefer a compositionally incorrect caption. We argue that a frozen encoder retains this association structure, so the problem is to read it rather than to rebuild it beside the pretrained similarity. We introduce BindCLIP, a pairwise scorer built on one latent object: a balanced token--patch--depth optimal-transport coupling that places both candidate captions and several visual depths in a single plan. Semantic, entity, order, and spatial evidence are read as energies of this state, and exchanging the candidates permutes the plan, making the score exactly antisymmetric. A geometric refinement inside the coupling contracts moves that the candidates and the visual depths do not support. No task label, parser, relation inventory, or detector is used. One checkpoint and one inference path improve the official What'sUp, ARO, and SugarCrepe benchmarks over frozen global CLIP, with the strongest transfer on the relation splits. Controls rule out patch access and caption-length shortcuts, and an inference-time lesion localizes spatial arrangement to the coupling.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Sep 2026.
Builds on
23 of 23 references.
References · 23
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,109
- 2013Sinkhorn Distances: Lightspeed Computation of Optimal Transportation Distancescited by 2,316
- 2019SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching with Graph Neural Networkscited by 1,443
- 2021Do Vision Transformers See Like Convolutional Neural Networks?cited by 675
- 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
- 2023What's "up" with vision-language models? Investigating their struggle with spatial reasoningcited by 254
- 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 243
- 2024Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problemcited by 75
- 2024SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterationscited by 42
- 2023Structure-CLIP: Towards Scene Graph Knowledge to Enhance Multi-modal Structured Representationscited by 37
- 2025CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modallycited by 31
11 more
- 2025Explain Before You Answer: A Survey on Compositional Visual Reasoningcited by 28
- 2022ComCLIP: Training-Free Compositional Image and Text Matchingcited by 26
- 2024The Hard Positive Truth about Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 22
- 2024ConMe: Rethinking Evaluation of Compositional Reasoning for Modern VLMscited by 21
- 2025Visual Structures Helps Visual Reasoning: Addressing the Binding Problem in VLMscited by 15
- 2025Vision-Language Models Struggle to Align Entities across Modalitiescited by 14
- 2025Object-centric Binding in Contrastive Language-Image Pretrainingcited by 12
- 2025Enhancing Vision-Language Compositional Understanding with Multimodal Synthetic Datacited by 12
- 2025Seeing What Matters: Empowering CLIP with Patch Generation-to-Selectioncited by 7
- 2025Common Data Properties Limit Object-Attribute Binding in CLIPcited by 4
- 2026Revisiting Compositionality in Dual-Encoder Vision-Language Models: The Role of Inferencecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.