Performant vision-language (VL) models like CLIP represent captions using a single vector. How much information about language is lost in this bottleneck? We first curate CompPrompts, a set of increasingly compositional image captions that VL models should be able to capture (e.g., single object, to object+property, to multiple interacting objects). Then, we train text-only recovery probes that aim to reconstruct captions from single-vector text representations produced by several VL models. This approach does not require images, allowing us to test on a broader range of scenes compared to prior work. We find that: 1) CLIP’s text encoder falls short on more compositional inputs, including object relationships, attribute-object association, counting, and negations; 2) some text encoders work significantly better than others; and 3) text-only recovery performance predicts multimodal matching performance on ControlledImCaps: a new evaluation benchmark we collect and release consisting of fine-grained compositional images and captions. Specifically, our results suggest text-only recoverability is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for modeling compositional factors in contrastive VL models. We release our datasets and code.

Recent vision-language (VL) models are powerful, but can they reliably distinguish “right” from “left”? We curate three new corpora to quantify model comprehension of such basic spatial relations. These tests isolate spatial reasoning more precisely than existing datasets like VQAv2, e.g., our What’sUp benchmark contains sets of photographs varying only the spatial relations of objects, keeping their identity fixed (see Figure 1: models must comprehend not only the usual case of a dog under a table, but also, the same dog on top of the same table). We evaluate 18 VL models, finding that all perform poorly, e.g., BLIP finetuned on VQAv2, which nears human parity on VQAv2, achieves 56% accuracy on our benchmarks vs. humans at 99%. We conclude by studying causes of this surprising behavior, finding: 1) that popular vision-language pretraining corpora like LAION-2B contain little reliable data for learning spatial relationships; and 2) that basic modeling interventions like up-weighting preposition-containing instances or fine-tuning on our corpora are not sufficient to address the challenges our benchmarks pose. We are hopeful that these corpora will facilitate further research, and we release our data and code at https://github.com/amitakamath/whatsup_vlms.

To avoid giving wrong answers, question answering (QA) models need to know when to abstain from answering. Moreover, users often ask questions that diverge from the model’s training data, making errors more likely and thus abstention more critical. In this work, we propose the setting of selective question answering under domain shift, in which a QA model is tested on a mixture of in-domain and out-of-domain data, and must answer (i.e., not abstain on) as many questions as possible while maintaining high accuracy. Abstention policies based solely on the model’s softmax probabilities fare poorly, since models are overconfident on out-of-domain inputs. Instead, we train a calibrator to identify inputs on which the QA model errs, and abstain when it predicts an error is likely. Crucially, the calibrator benefits from observing the model’s behavior on out-of-domain data, even if from a different domain than the test data. We combine this method with a SQuAD-trained QA model and evaluate on mixtures of SQuAD and five other QA datasets. Our method answers 56% of questions while maintaining 80% accuracy; in contrast, directly using the model’s probabilities only answers 48% at 80% accuracy.