pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03976 · v1 · pith:UYJRLO2Lnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI· cs.LG· q-bio.NC

Formalizing the Binding Problem

Lianghuan Huang , Yihao Li , Saeed Salehi , Yingshan Chang , Ansh Soni , Konrad P. Kording This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 10:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NC
keywords binding problemvision transformersinformation theoryprobing methodfeature bindingvisual recognitionscene understandingobject features
0
0 comments X

The pith

Vision transformers encode binding information that associates features with specific objects.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper formalizes the binding problem as the challenge of representing not only individual features but also which features belong to the same object in a scene. It introduces an information-theoretic probing technique to quantify this binding information within the internal representations of deep learning models. Experiments apply this probe to various Vision Transformer architectures and datasets involving feature sharing, occlusion, and natural scenes, comparing components such as the class token and patch tokens. The results indicate that binding information is present in these models and plays a role in their ability to handle complex visual inputs. A sympathetic reader would care because misbinding features is a known weakness in current systems, and measuring it could guide improvements in recognition and reasoning tasks.

Core claim

We formalize the binding problem with an information-theoretic approach, and introduce a probing method to measure binding information in model representations. We perform experiments on ViTs, measuring binding from different components of the architecture, such as the image summary token [CLS] or the spatial tokens. We use datasets with different binding challenges, such as feature sharing, occlusion, and natural features, while comparing the performance of several pre-trained ViTs. Overall, our research demonstrates binding as a key ingredient to strong visual recognition and reasoning.

What carries the argument

Information-theoretic probing method to measure how features are bound to objects in model representations.

If this is right

  • Binding information varies across different components like the CLS token and spatial tokens in ViTs.
  • Datasets with feature sharing, occlusion, and natural features reveal differences in binding across pre-trained models.
  • Higher binding information supports stronger performance in visual recognition and reasoning tasks.
  • The probe allows separate measurement of binding from other representation properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same probe could be applied to CNNs or other architectures to compare their binding capacity directly.
  • Training losses that reward higher probe scores might reduce errors on scenes where objects share features.
  • Binding measurements could diagnose specific failure modes in current multi-object scene parsers.

Load-bearing premise

The introduced probing method isolates and accurately measures binding information in representations without being dominated by other correlated factors in the model or dataset construction.

What would settle it

If the probe assigns high binding scores to models that continue to misattribute features to the wrong objects at rates predicted by random guessing on controlled multi-object datasets, the claim that binding is a measurable key ingredient would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03976 by Ansh Soni, Konrad P. Kording, Lianghuan Huang, Saeed Salehi, Yihao Li, Yingshan Chang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Binding failures. Left: (Campbell et al., 2025) shows that the ability of a vision-language model to accurately describe objects and their features in a scene degrades monotonically as the number of feature-sharing triplets (or the total number of objects) increases in a scene. Right: (Zhang et al., 2024) prompts vision￾language models to describe grid patterns in the Raven matrix. For the middle-right blo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Binding theory and probing framework. We first define the space of features and objects of interest, as shown in features set F and object set O (Definitions 2.1, 2.3). Each object is a combination of features from the feature set (Definition 2.3, Remark 2.4). From there, we define the feature code F and object code O, which are random vectors that denote the presence and absence of each feature and object… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Binding degrades with increasing feature space complexity in ColorShape. Middle: We run the CLIP ViT-L/14 (224px) model on the Color-Shape dataset with all 49 configurations of numbers of colors and shapes, and report the normalized binding information β ∗ O,F (Z). The percentage of binding information captured by the model decreases as the dataset becomes more complex, involving more objects with more col… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CLEVR examples of object-code uncertainty revealed by binding probes. Blue bars (H(O | Z)) indicate uncertainty in predicting objects. Left: Color misattribution in binding. Right: Uncertainty on the joint presence of a brown cylinder and a brown cube [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , which are controlled by camera elevation and pitch angle. The dataset consists of 24,000 samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: VG:Color examples of object-code uncertainty revealed by binding probes. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Representations of the world, arguably, contain information about features (e.g. something is blue, something is a circle) but also information about which features are part of the same object (e.g. the circle is blue), which we call binding information. Any system with the ability to understand scenes with multiple objects must be able to solve the binding problem: it needs to know which features belong together. However, despite work showing that Vision Transformers (ViTs) know which patches belong together, it is not known whether current deep learning models learn to exhibit binding information, i.e., for features. We may believe that there is not much binding information, after all misattributing features to wrong objects is a common failure of ViT-based architectures, especially in scenes with objects sharing features. Here we formalize the binding problem with an information-theoretic approach, and introduce a probing method to measure binding information in model representations. We perform experiments on ViTs, measuring binding from different components of the architecture, such as the image summary token [CLS] or the spatial tokens. We use datasets with different binding challenges, such as feature sharing, occlusion, and natural features, while comparing the performance of several pre-trained ViTs. Overall, our research demonstrates binding as a key ingredient to strong visual recognition and reasoning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes the binding problem in visual representations as the information about which features belong to the same object (distinct from marginal feature presence), using an information-theoretic definition based on mutual information between feature and object variables. It introduces a probing method to measure this binding information in components of Vision Transformers (e.g., [CLS] token vs. spatial tokens) and evaluates it across datasets with varying binding challenges (feature sharing, occlusion, natural features), comparing multiple pre-trained ViTs. The central claim is that binding information is a key ingredient for strong visual recognition and reasoning.

Significance. If the probing method validly isolates binding structure, the work would provide a useful formalization and measurement tool for a longstanding issue in scene understanding, with potential to guide improvements in architectures like ViTs that currently struggle with feature misattribution. The experiments across multiple models and datasets offer a starting point for quantitative assessment, though the lack of controls for marginal statistics limits the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3, §4] §3 and §4: The information-theoretic definition of binding via mutual information between feature and object variables is reasonable in principle, but the probe construction (using classifiers or estimators on full representation vectors) does not include the necessary control of holding marginal feature distributions fixed while randomizing object-feature assignments. Without this ablation, the measured quantity can increase due to improved marginal feature detection alone, undermining the claim that the probe quantifies binding separately from feature presence. This is load-bearing for the empirical conclusion that binding is demonstrated as a key ingredient.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'we may believe that there is not much binding information' is informal and could be clarified with reference to specific prior failure modes in ViTs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The concern about controlling for marginal feature distributions is well-taken and directly impacts the interpretation of our probing results. We address it below and outline the planned revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3, §4] §3 and §4: The information-theoretic definition of binding via mutual information between feature and object variables is reasonable in principle, but the probe construction (using classifiers or estimators on full representation vectors) does not include the necessary control of holding marginal feature distributions fixed while randomizing object-feature assignments. Without this ablation, the measured quantity can increase due to improved marginal feature detection alone, undermining the claim that the probe quantifies binding separately from feature presence. This is load-bearing for the empirical conclusion that binding is demonstrated as a key ingredient.

    Authors: We agree that the current probe lacks an explicit control that holds marginal feature statistics fixed while disrupting object-feature bindings. Such a control is necessary to isolate binding information from improvements in marginal feature detection. In the revised version we will add this ablation: for each dataset we will generate a matched control set in which object-feature assignments are randomized (via permutation of object labels within feature-sharing groups) while exactly preserving the marginal distributions of individual features. We will then re-run the probe on both the original and control representations and report the difference, which should reflect binding-specific information. This addition will be included in §4 and the associated figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; formalization and probe are definitional and methodological

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is an information-theoretic definition of binding (mutual information between feature and object variables) followed by a probing method to measure it in ViT representations. This constitutes a self-contained formalization and measurement proposal rather than any derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported from prior author work, and no renaming of known results occurs. The approach stands as an independent proposal that can be evaluated against external data and controls without internal circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach rests on standard information theory and the assumption that binding can be isolated via probes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5785 in / 976 out tokens · 24905 ms · 2026-06-28T10:19:56.024433+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025 , eprint=

    V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  2. [2]

    1982 , issn =

    Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , journal =. 1982 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90006-8 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90006-8 1982

  3. [3]

    1992 , issn =

    The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , journal =. 1992 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-o 1992

  4. [4]

    Saxe , title =

    Devon Jarvis and Richard Klein and Benjamin Rosman and Andrew M. Saxe , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  5. [5]

    5, 359–366,https: //doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8

    Kurt Hornik and Maxwell Stinchcombe and Halbert White , keywords =. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators , journal =. 1989 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 1989

  6. [6]

    Matrix Factorization Revisited , author=

    Neural Collaborative Filtering vs. Matrix Factorization Revisited , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  7. [7]

    Can we fix it? Yes! , author=

    Is CLIP ideal? No. Can we fix it? Yes! , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  8. [8]

    2026 , eprint=

    Beyond the final layer: Attentive multilayer fusion for vision transformers , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  9. [9]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=

    Characterizing Vision Backbones for Dense Prediction with Dense Attentive Probing , author=. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , issn=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  10. [10]

    2026 , eprint=

    V-JEPA 2.1: Unlocking Dense Features in Video Self-Supervised Learning , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  11. [11]

    2023 , eprint=

    Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  12. [12]

    2023 , eprint=

    Visual Instruction Tuning , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  13. [13]

    2021 , eprint=

    Barlow Twins: Self-Supervised Learning via Redundancy Reduction , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  14. [14]

    2020 , eprint=

    A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  15. [15]

    2017 , eprint=

    Neural Module Networks , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  16. [16]

    , title =

    Smolensky, P. , title =. 1990 , issue_date =. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90007-M , journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90007-m 1990

  17. [17]

    2017 , eprint=

    Dynamic Routing Between Capsules , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  18. [18]

    2023 , eprint=

    Bridging the Gap to Real-World Object-Centric Learning , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  19. [19]

    2021 , eprint=

    Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  20. [20]

    2018 , eprint=

    Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes , author=. 2018 , eprint=

    2018

  21. [21]

    2024 , eprint=

    SAM 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videos , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  22. [22]

    2023 , eprint=

    Segment Anything , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  23. [23]

    2025 , eprint=

    Segment Anything, Even Occluded , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  24. [24]

    2020 , eprint=

    On the Binding Problem in Artificial Neural Networks , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  25. [25]

    2023 , eprint=

    Compositional Generalization from First Principles , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  26. [26]

    2018 , eprint=

    Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks , author=. 2018 , eprint=

    2018

  27. [27]

    2020 , eprint=

    Compositionality decomposed: how do neural networks generalise? , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  28. [28]

    2025 , eprint=

    Does Data Scaling Lead to Visual Compositional Generalization? , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  29. [29]

    Cognitive Science , volume =

    Xinchi Yu and Ellen Lau , title =. Cognitive Science , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  30. [30]

    Neural mechanisms of feature binding , author=. Sci. China Life Sci , volume=

  31. [31]

    2025 , eprint=

    Quantifying the Limits of Segmentation Foundation Models: Modeling Challenges in Segmenting Tree-Like and Low-Contrast Objects , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  32. [32]

    2015 , eprint=

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context , author=. 2015 , eprint=

    2015

  33. [33]

    2023 , eprint=

    PUG: Photorealistic and Semantically Controllable Synthetic Data for Representation Learning , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  34. [34]

    2016 , eprint=

    CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoning , author=. 2016 , eprint=

    2016

  35. [35]

    2025 , eprint=

    SuperCLIP: CLIP with Simple Classification Supervision , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  36. [36]

    2021 , eprint=

    Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformers , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  37. [37]

    2024 , eprint=

    DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  38. [38]

    2021 , eprint=

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  39. [39]

    2021 , eprint=

    Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  40. [40]

    2025 , eprint=

    CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modally , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  41. [41]

    Poster Sessions at the 7th Annual Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience (CCN 2024) , year =

    Fangrui Huang and Klemen Kotar and Wanhee Lee and Rosa Cao and Daniel Yamins , title =. Poster Sessions at the 7th Annual Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience (CCN 2024) , year =

    2024

  42. [42]

    2025 , eprint=

    Evaluating Compositional Generalisation in VLMs and Diffusion Models , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  43. [43]

    2024 , eprint=

    Does CLIP Bind Concepts? Probing Compositionality in Large Image Models , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  44. [44]

    2022 , journal=

    Toy Models of Superposition , author=. 2022 , journal=

    2022

  45. [45]

    2025 , eprint=

    On the Complexity of Neural Computation in Superposition , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  46. [46]

    2025 , eprint=

    Does Object Binding Naturally Emerge in Large Pretrained Vision Transformers? , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  47. [47]

    The Correlation Theory of Brain Function , institution =

    von der Malsburg, Christoph , year =. The Correlation Theory of Brain Function , institution =

  48. [48]

    Humphreys, G. W. and Duncan, J. and Treisman, A. and Treisman, Anne , title =. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , volume =. 1998 , month =. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0284 , url =

    work page doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0284 1998

  49. [49]

    2023 , eprint=

    Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  50. [50]

    2025 , eprint=

    Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  51. [51]

    2024 , eprint=

    How Far Are We from Intelligent Visual Deductive Reasoning? , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  52. [52]

    2023 , eprint=

    When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it? , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  53. [53]

    2025 , eprint=

    Visual symbolic mechanisms: Emergent symbol processing in vision language models , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  54. [54]

    2019 , eprint=

    Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representations , author=. 2019 , eprint=

    2019

  55. [55]

    2025 , eprint=

    On the Theoretical Understanding of Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders and Beyond , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  56. [56]

    1980 , issn =

    A feature-integration theory of attention , journal =. 1980 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5 1980

  57. [57]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  58. [58]

    2017 , eprint=

    The Mythos of Model Interpretability , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  59. [59]

    T. M. Mitchell. The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. 1980

    1980

  60. [60]

    M. J. Kearns , title =

  61. [61]

    Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I. 1983

    1983

  62. [62]

    R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification. 2000

    2000

  63. [63]

    Suppressed for Anonymity , author=

  64. [64]

    Newell and P

    A. Newell and P. S. Rosenbloom. Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. 1981

    1981

  65. [65]

    A. L. Samuel. Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development. 1959

    1959

  66. [66]

    1962 , publisher=

    Principles of neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the theory of brain mechanisms , author=. 1962 , publisher=

    1962

  67. [67]

    Neuron , volume=

    The what and why of binding: the modeler’s perspective , author=. Neuron , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  68. [68]

    Cognitive neurodynamics , volume=

    The neural binding problem (s) , author=. Cognitive neurodynamics , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  69. [69]

    Neuron , volume=

    The binding problem , author=. Neuron , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  70. [70]

    Current opinion in neurobiology , volume=

    The binding problem , author=. Current opinion in neurobiology , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  71. [71]

    Neuron , volume=

    Solutions to the binding problem: progress through controversy and convergence , author=. Neuron , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  72. [72]

    Neuron , volume=

    The role of neural mechanisms of attention in solving the binding problem , author=. Neuron , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

    1999

  73. [73]

    Neuron , volume=

    Solving the binding problem: Assemblies form when neurons enhance their firing rate—they don’t need to oscillate or synchronize , author=. Neuron , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  74. [74]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences , year=

    Beyond binding: from modular to natural vision , author=. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , year=

  75. [75]

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience , volume=

    Binding, spatial attention and perceptual awareness , author=. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  76. [76]

    Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=

    The binding problem lives on: Comment on Di Lollo , author=. Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=

  77. [77]

    Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=

    The feature-binding problem is an ill-posed problem , author=. Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  78. [78]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences , year=

    Feature binding in biological and artificial vision , author=. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , year=

  79. [79]

    Annual review of neuroscience , volume=

    Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis , author=. Annual review of neuroscience , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  80. [80]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13821 , year=

    Artificial kuramoto oscillatory neurons , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13821 , year=

    arXiv

Showing first 80 references.