Papers › Probing Conceptual Understanding of Large Visual-Language Models

Probing Conceptual Understanding of Large Visual-Language Models

7 Apr 2023arXiv:2304.03659archive 2025-07-28

Madeline Schiappa, Raiyaan Abdullah, Shehreen Azad, Jared Claypoole, Michael Cogswell, Ajay Divakaran, Yogesh Rawat

In recent years large visual-language (V+L) models have achieved great success in various downstream tasks. However, it is not well studied whether these models have a conceptual grasp of the visual content. In this work we focus on conceptual understanding of these large V+L models. To facilitate this study, we propose novel benchmarking datasets for probing three different aspects of content understanding, 1) \textit{relations}, 2) \textit{composition}, and 3) \textit{context}. Our probes are grounded in cognitive science and help determine if a V+L model can, for example, determine if snow garnished with a man is implausible, or if it can identify beach furniture by knowing it is located on a beach. We experimented with many recent state-of-the-art V+L models and observe that these models mostly \textit{fail to demonstrate} a conceptual understanding. This study reveals several interesting insights such as that \textit{cross-attention} helps learning conceptual understanding, and that CNNs are better with \textit{texture and patterns}, while Transformers are better at \textit{color and shape}. We further utilize some of these insights and investigate a \textit{simple finetuning technique} that rewards the three conceptual understanding measures with promising initial results. The proposed benchmarks will drive the community to delve deeper into conceptual understanding and foster advancements in the capabilities of large V+L models. The code and dataset is available at: \url{https://tinyurl.com/vlm-robustness}

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2304.03659")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.

By repository: official repository: 4 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels officialmentioned on GitHubpytorch report

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

4 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · our draft was wrong
1ran · fixture could not drive it
2unverified

Licence: 4 of the 4 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 Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels. “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.

average_precision Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels/core/eval_context_understanding.py official repository ran · fixture could not drive it fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · cca051584677b059 · report
make_comparisons Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels/core/eval_context_understanding.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · da1cfae6a5deaa69 · report
eval_flava Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels/core/eval_relation_understanding.py official repository unverified no licence file found · pointer only · 4088ef65bb0d79f1 · report
eval_flava Maddy12/UnderstandingVisualTextModels/core/eval_compositional_understanding.py official repository unverified no licence file found · pointer only · 6cd4b4c43a746200 · report

Tasks

Benchmarking

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

CLIPfail

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