arXiv preprint ·

It Takes Two to Probe, Thousands to Retrieve: Putting Vision--Language Probes to the Retrieval Test

Ivana Beňová, Michal Gregor and Marián Šimko

Published
Source
arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
Original
Read it at arXiv
Topics
Computer VisionComputation & Language / NLP

Abstract

Vision--language models (VLMs) are tested for fine-grained understanding with image--text matching probes, a model must prefer the correct image or caption over handcrafted negative. In retrieval, the correct item must beat thousands of alternatives. We measure how these two evaluation methods relate by using two probing benchmarks, \svo{} and SugarCrepe, for retrieval tasks. For 100 image and caption queries we judge the top-10 retrievals from full dataset of six VLMs, with human annotators and an LLM assessor. We than compare how well models rank pool of items on the same queries, while changing only where the negatives comes from: the benchmark, a random draw, or the judged-incorrect retrievals of other models. On \svo{} the accuracy of retrieving a positive over handcrafted negatives is significantly higher than for retrieved ones (the correct item is preferred in 85\% against 77\% of the time). Using pool of ten retrieved negatives leads to same accuracy as when one uses pool of 200 to 430 random negatives. On SugarCrepe the order is reversed: its handcrafted negatives are harder than the retrieved ones. Incomplete relevance labels explain most of the low retrieval scores on \svo{}, where the top-ranked item is correct for 54--90\% of the queries under human labels against 6--21\% under the benchmark's labels. However, we detect no association between passing the probe for a query and retrieving a correct item first. The LLM assessor o3 agrees with individual annotators ($κ$ 0.57--0.61) slightly less than they agree with each other (0.64--0.68).

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.

Already a reader? Sign in

All new papers 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.

Papers belong to their authors and publishers; every page here links to the original. All research topics