IC-1407OpenFlamingo and Idefics models perform near random chance on compositional image-text matching, and ICL has almost no effect on atomic foils

Mustafa Shukor, Alexandre Rame, Corentin Dancette, Matthieu Cord

SourceBeyond task performance: evaluating and reducing the flaws of large multimodal models with in-context-learning

On CRePE and SugarCrepe benchmarks, LMMs are only slightly better than random (50%) at detecting when sentence constituents are changed. OFv2-9b scores 53.88% on hn-atom and 60.75% on hn-comp in zero-shot; Idefics-9b scores 58.05% and 62.63%. ICL does not improve hn-atom accuracy but does help hn-comp (Idefics-9b rises from 62.63% to 86.39% at 32-shot). The apparent improvement of 80B models on CRePE is attributed to benchmark biases (longer, less fluent hard negatives) rather than true compositional ability, confirmed by poor performance on SugarCrepe.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
OFv2-9b CRePE: 53.88/60.75/56.53 (0-shot) to 52.20/75.61/60.59 (32-shot) for hn-atom/hn-comp/hn-atom+comp; Idefics-9b CRePE: 58.05/62.63/60.02 (0-shot) to 60.54/86.39/71.49 (32-shot)
Caveat
The paper notes that the 80B model's apparent advantage on CRePE may come from exploiting biases in the benchmark (hard negatives are usually longer, do not always make logical sense, and lack fluency), as confirmed by poor performance on SugarCrepe.
Model
OpenFlamingo, Idefics
Concepts
Failure mode
Datasets
CREPE [eval], SugarCrepe [eval]
Methods
In-Context Learning / In-context learning prompt [primary]
Related work
OpenFlamingo [context], Idefics [context]
Related findings
IC-1405, IC-1406, IC-1408
Extraction
automatic-extraction