Papers › On Erroneous Agreements of CLIP Image Embeddings

On Erroneous Agreements of CLIP Image Embeddings

7 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.05195archive 2025-07-28

Siting Li, Pang Wei Koh, Simon Shaolei Du

Recent research suggests that the failures of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) at visual reasoning often stem from erroneous agreements -- when semantically distinct images are ambiguously encoded by the CLIP image encoder into embeddings with high cosine similarity. In this paper, we show that erroneous agreements are not always the main culprit, as Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can still extract distinct information from them. For instance, when distinguishing objects on the left vs right in the What'sUp benchmark, the CLIP image embeddings of the left/right pairs have an average cosine similarity >0.99, and CLIP performs at random chance; but LLaVA-1.5-7B, which uses the same CLIP image encoder, achieves nearly 100% accuracy. We find that the extractable information in CLIP image embeddings is likely obscured by CLIP's inadequate vision-language alignment: Its matching score learned by the contrastive objective might not capture all diverse image-text correspondences. We also study the MMVP benchmark, on which prior work has shown that LLaVA-1.5 cannot distinguish image pairs with high cosine similarity. We observe a performance gain brought by attending more to visual input through an alternative decoding algorithm. Further, the accuracy significantly increases if the model can take both images as input to emphasize their nuanced differences. Both findings indicate that LLaVA-1.5 did not utilize extracted visual information sufficiently. In conclusion, our findings suggest that while improving image encoders could benefit VLMs, there is still room to enhance models with a fixed image encoder by applying better strategies for extracting and utilizing visual information.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

11 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 11 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from lst627/CLIP-Embeds. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections