Inference-Time Structural Reasoning for Compositional Vision-Language Understanding
arXiv:2603.27349v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) excel at image-text retrieval yet persistently fail at compositional reasoning, distinguishing captions that share the same words but differ in relational structure. We present, a unified evaluation and augmentation framework benchmarking four architecturally diverse VLMs,CLIP, BLIP, LLaVA, and Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking,on the Winoground benchmark under plain and scene-graph-augmented regimes. We introduce a dependency-based TextSceneGraphParser (spaCy) extracting subject-relation-object triples, and a Graph Asymmetry S — Amartya Bhattacharya
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Vision-language models (VLMs) excel at image-text retrieval yet persistently fail at compositional reasoning, distinguishing captions that share the same words but differ in relational structure. We present, a unified evaluation and augmentation framework benchmarking four architecturally diverse VLMs,CLIP, BLIP, LLaVA, and Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking,on the Winoground benchmark under plain and scene-graph-augmented regimes. We introduce a dependency-based TextSceneGraphParser (spaCy) extracting subject-relation-object triples, and a Graph Asymmetry Scorer using optimal bipartite matching to inject structural relational priors. Caption ablation experiments (subject-object masking and swapping) reveal that Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking achieves a group score of 62.75, far above all encoder-based models, while a proposed multi-turn SG filtering strategy further lifts it to 66.0, surpassing prior open-source state-of-the-art. We analyze the capability augmentation tradeoff and find that SG augmentation benefits already capable models while providing negligible or negative gains for weaker baselines. Code: this https URL
Subjects:
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27349 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2603.27349v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27349
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Amartya Bhattacharya Mr. [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 17:41:35 UTC (5,761 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
TurboQuant, KIVI, and the Real Cost of Long-Context KV Cache
<h1> I Built a Free KV Cache Calculator for LLM Inference </h1> <p>When people talk about LLM deployment costs, they usually start with model weights.</p> <p>That makes sense, but once you push context length higher, KV cache becomes one of the real bottlenecks. In many long-context setups, it is the<br> dynamic memory cost that quietly starts dominating deployment decisions.</p> <p>I built a small free tool to make that easier to estimate:</p> <p><a href="https://turbo-quant.com/en/kv-cache-calculator" rel="noopener noreferrer">TurboQuant Tools</a></p> <p>It is a practical KV cache calculator for LLM inference. You can use it to estimate memory for:</p> <ul> <li>MHA models</li> <li>GQA models</li> <li>MQA models</li> <li>different context lengths</li> <li>different batch sizes</li> <li>di
Sweden brings urgency—and royalty—to Montréal as it seeks AI research partnership - BetaKit
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipAFBVV95cUxNaFdQTnJheUhjQWN4YzRIX082TlN6MWhTOUo1UnhmTGJ3RFp6dXNhbXphd3FlOUUtTGxwZWhrUkQtNEszcnhpYXhNNnVVT3RIU3QtNXlnZ0thb3VoSmZJcUExN0JTMURxZjFMLWhhVmM3dlhLemtiRUZ0azkwRGVkRDdpN1lBa1E4ZF9kWFpWaDdIM0ZHbGk3d241N1JkMEJUdVpSMw?oc=5" target="_blank">Sweden brings urgency—and royalty—to Montréal as it seeks AI research partnership</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">BetaKit</font>
Exclusive | Caltech Researchers Claim Radical Compression of High-Fidelity AI Models - wsj.com
<a href="https://news.google.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?oc=5" target="_blank">Exclusive | Caltech Researchers Claim Radical Compression of High-Fidelity AI Models</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">wsj.com</font>
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
From brain scans to alloys: Teaching AI to make sense of complex research data - Penn State University
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiwAFBVV95cUxPZDFHdkptQ2VUM2hmWjhqQkxoRnBiTWoxMXRRR21MUG5TamdUMlFRWmhvYVNHaFVNREVKU3VmSnVOdDVZYnNLb2ppYXRVRTZmVFVMV1pLTlVhUm9ybTNZbGtvZTdIMnIyMHNpOEk5aU9TSmxxS2Y4V2MwazYwY3JlX1Axbk1nd3pfcWhFdUJaaDJWRXJaMFIyTTROcmFHeXI3ZzFudXJ2M1h6UHI1LW1Ca1dta2RkM3BiYndocGk3Yjg?oc=5" target="_blank">From brain scans to alloys: Teaching AI to make sense of complex research data</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">Penn State University</font>
Locating Risk: Task Designers and the Challenge of Risk Disclosure in RAI Content Work
arXiv:2505.24246v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection process
Togedule: Scheduling Meetings with Large Language Models and Adaptive Representations of Group Availability
arXiv:2505.01000v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scheduling is a perennial-and often challenging-problem for many groups. Existing tools are mostly static, showing an identical set of choices to everyone, regardless of the current status of attendees' inputs and preferences. In this paper, we propose Togedule, an adaptive scheduling tool that uses large language models to dynamically adjust the pool of choices and their presentation format. With the initial prototype, we conducted a formative study (N=10) and identified the potential benefits and risks of such an adaptive scheduling tool. Then, after enhancing the system, we conducted two controlled experiments, one each for attendees and organizers (total N=66). For each experiment, we compared scheduling with verbal messages, shared c
Dynamic Cogeneration of Bug Reproduction Test in Agentic Program Repair
arXiv:2601.19066v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs) have been used in many Automated Program Repair (APR) systems, primarily for validating promising fixes and aiding fix generation. In practice, when developers submit a patch, they often implement the BRT alongside the fix. Our experience deploying agentic APR reveals that developers similarly desire a BRT within AI-generated patches to increase their confidence. However, canonical APR systems tend to generate BRTs and fixes separately, and focus on producing only the fix in the final patch. In this paper, we study agentic APR in the context of cogeneration, where the APR agent is instructed to generate both a fix and a BRT in the same patch. We evaluate the effectiveness of different cogeneration strategies
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!