Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.11171 v2 pith:ZJ3HWCQZ submitted 2024-06-17 cs.CV cs.CLcs.LG

SUGARCREPE++ Dataset: Vision-Language Model Sensitivity to Semantic and Lexical Alterations

classification cs.CV cs.CLcs.LG
keywords sugarcrepedatasetlexicalmodelssemanticvlmsalterationsdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Despite their remarkable successes, state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), including vision-and-language models (VLMs) and unimodal language models (ULMs), fail to understand precise semantics. For example, semantically equivalent sentences expressed using different lexical compositions elicit diverging representations. The degree of this divergence and its impact on encoded semantics is not very well understood. In this paper, we introduce the SUGARCREPE++ dataset to analyze the sensitivity of VLMs and ULMs to lexical and semantic alterations. Each sample in SUGARCREPE++ dataset consists of an image and a corresponding triplet of captions: a pair of semantically equivalent but lexically different positive captions and one hard negative caption. This poses a 3-way semantic (in)equivalence problem to the language models. We comprehensively evaluate VLMs and ULMs that differ in architecture, pre-training objectives and datasets to benchmark the performance of SUGARCREPE++ dataset. Experimental results highlight the difficulties of VLMs in distinguishing between lexical and semantic variations, particularly in object attributes and spatial relations. Although VLMs with larger pre-training datasets, model sizes, and multiple pre-training objectives achieve better performance on SUGARCREPE++, there is a significant opportunity for improvement. We show that all the models which achieve better performance on compositionality datasets need not perform equally well on SUGARCREPE++, signifying that compositionality alone may not be sufficient for understanding semantic and lexical alterations. Given the importance of the property that the SUGARCREPE++ dataset targets, it serves as a new challenge to the vision-and-language community.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. REALISTA: Realistic Latent Adversarial Attacks that Elicit LLM Hallucinations

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    REALISTA optimizes continuous combinations of valid editing directions in latent space to produce realistic adversarial prompts that elicit hallucinations more effectively than prior methods, including on large reason...

  2. REALISTA: Realistic Latent Adversarial Attacks that Elicit LLM Hallucinations

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    REALISTA generates semantically coherent adversarial prompts via latent-space optimization over input-dependent editing directions, achieving stronger hallucination elicitation than prior realistic attacks on open-sou...

  3. Understanding Space Is Rocket Science -- Only Top Reasoning Models Can Solve Spatial Understanding Tasks

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new contrastive real-image benchmark shows most vision-language models fail spatial relation tasks, while chain-of-thought reasoning models approach human-level accuracy.