Inference-Time Structural Reasoning for Compositional Vision-Language Understanding

Amartya Bhattacharya · Mar 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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: https://github.com/amartyacodes/Inference-Time-Structural-Reasoning-for-Compositional-Vision-Language-Understanding

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.