Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Vision-Language Models Do Not Understand Negation

About

Many practical vision-language applications require models that understand negation, e.g., when using natural language to retrieve images which contain certain objects but not others. Despite advancements in vision-language models (VLMs) through large-scale training, their ability to comprehend negation remains underexplored. This study addresses the question: how well do current VLMs understand negation? We introduce NegBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate negation understanding across 18 task variations and $79$k examples spanning image, video, and medical datasets. The benchmark consists of two core tasks designed to evaluate negation understanding in diverse multimodal settings: Retrieval with Negation and Multiple Choice Questions with Negated Captions. Our evaluation reveals that modern VLMs struggle significantly with negation, often performing at chance level. To address these shortcomings, we explore a data-centric approach wherein we finetune CLIP models on large-scale synthetic datasets containing millions of negated captions. We show that this approach can result in a 10% increase in recall on negated queries and a 28% boost in accuracy on multiple-choice questions with negated captions.

Kumail Alhamoud, Shaden Alshammari, Yonglong Tian, Guohao Li, Philip Torr, Yoon Kim, Marzyeh Ghassemi• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Text-to-Video RetrievalMSR-VTT--
406
Text-to-Image RetrievalCOCO--
156
Negative Concept SuppressionLLM-generated prompts
Suppression Rate (%)3.25
10
Negative Concept SuppressionCOCO derived prompts
Suppression (%)5
10
Negative Concept SuppressionCombined LLM-generated + COCO-derived
Suppression Rate4.12
10
Negative Concept SuppressionDCS-Bench LLM-generated prompts on FLUX (dev)
Negative Concept Suppression (%)3.5
10
Negative Concept SuppressionDCS-Bench COCO-derived prompts FLUX (dev)
Suppression Rate (%)4.25
10
Negative Concept SuppressionDCS-Bench Combined FLUX (dev)
Negative Concept Suppression (%)3.88
10
Claim-based evaluationContextual negation benchmark (test)
Claim Accuracy48.7
5
Claim-based evaluationcontextual negation benchmark affirmative-only (test)
Claim Accuracy58.9
5
Showing 10 of 16 rows

Other info

Follow for update