arXiv preprint ·
Beyond Correct Answers: How Compositional Cues Shape Visual Judgments
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Visual question answering requires models to assign attributes and relations to the correct objects, a problem known as visual binding. Structured prompts make these assignments explicit through labeled fields. Yet an improvement from the full prompt does not reveal which labels help or how they interact. First, we isolate field-label effects across ten models and six tasks by holding the image and claim fixed. These comparisons reveal differences that overall accuracy can hide. With a relation label present, adding object-role labels helps Qwen3 but hurts Qwen2 on Spatial. Second, we compare auxiliary hints that preserve or swap the question's role assignments against a no-hint baseline. Across two image sets, Qwen3's advantage with preserving hints mainly reflects errors caused by swapped hints. Preserving hints remain near baseline. Field order further affects the harm. Third, we test clearer hint wording and direct selection of the relation shown in the image. Clearer hints improve text matching but do not consistently improve visual judgments. In contrast, relation selection partly reduces errors for some hints in Qwen3 and GPT-4.1-mini.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.