1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
# Visual Genome hidden-permutation result
Run date: 2026-07-28
## Question
Does relational overcompleteness make independently pretrained visual and
language representations identifiable without exposing any image-text pairs
to the matcher?
This experiment is deliberately more favorable than the Flickr30k experiment.
Both modalities observe the same set of 5,000 real scenes, but all node IDs and
orders are independently randomized. The permutation is stored in a private
file and loaded only for evaluation.
## Protocol
- 5,000 Visual Genome scenes, sampled from 107,019 scenes with at least 32
annotated regions.
- 16 views per scene and modality.
- Vision: full-image and region-crop features from frozen
`facebook/dinov2-small`; no language-supervised vision model.
- Language: frozen final hidden states from `Qwen/Qwen2.5-1.5B`.
- No pair, source image ID, URL, coordinate, label, or region ID is available
to the matching code.
- `region_closed`: 16 human region descriptions.
- `visible_relations`: a fixed 16-view mixture of region descriptions and
explicitly visible attribute/SPO statements.
- `qa_expanded`: a fixed 16-view mixture that also includes image QA.
Two independent invariants are evaluated:
1. a within-scene unlabeled bundle signature (edge-distribution quantiles and
Gram spectra);
2. a between-scene 32-nearest-neighbor graph signature (local density and
multi-scale diagonal heat kernels).
Both signatures are computed independently in each modality. They require no
learned cross-modal map.
## Closure ablation
Random chance at 5,000 candidates is 0.02% R@1 and 0.20% R@10.
| Text bundle | True edge Spearman | Bundle R@10 | Graph R@1 | Graph R@10 | Graph median rank |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Region descriptions | 0.1286 | 0.26% | 0.06% (3x) | 0.62% (3.1x) | 2,069 |
| Visible attributes/relations | **0.1646** | 0.16% | **0.12% (6x)** | **0.70% (3.5x)** | **1,928** |
| QA-expanded | 0.1579 | 0.26% | 0.02% (1x) | 0.50% (2.5x) | 2,025 |
The important result is not the absolute accuracy, which remains far from
usable. It is the controlled ordering:
- explicit visible relations make the two scene graphs more similar and
improve blind graph matching;
- adding QA increases linguistic content but reduces identifiability relative
to the visible-relation condition;
- concatenating a weak or modality-specific bundle signature can reduce the
stronger graph-only result.
Thus, more information in the text representation is not automatically
helpful. The useful quantity is information about the common observable
relational structure.
## Graph-size scaling
For the `region_closed` condition:
| Nodes | Graph R@10 | Chance | Lift |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 500 | 2.60% | 2.00% | 1.3x |
| 1,000 | 1.30% | 1.00% | 1.3x |
| 2,000 | 1.00% | 0.50% | 2.0x |
| 5,000 | 0.62% | 0.20% | 3.1x |
Absolute recall declines because the candidate pool grows, but lift over
chance increases. Under an independence-only binomial reference, the 20
top-ten hits at 2,000 nodes have `p=0.0034`, and the 31 hits at 5,000 nodes
have `p=7.6e-8`. These p-values are descriptive rather than calibrated because
graph-derived query ranks are dependent.
## Negative ablation
Three rounds of parameter-free neighborhood message passing did not improve
the 5,000-node result. Graph R@10 fell from 0.62% to 0.36%, although R@1 rose
from 0.06% to 0.08%. More graph depth is therefore not sufficient by itself.
## Conclusion
This experiment supports a narrow version of the hypothesis:
> Independently pretrained vision and language representations contain shared
> relational structure, and relational coverage can accumulate enough signal
> to improve blind correspondence as the graph grows.
It does not yet support the stronger claim that the hidden semantic gauge is
recoverable well enough to train a multimodal bridge. The best setting finds
only 6 exact top-one matches among 5,000 nodes. Feeding those assignments into
a frozen-LLM bridge would mostly train on incorrect pseudo-pairs.
Confidence calibration makes this boundary sharper. In the
`visible_relations` setting, none of the six correct top-one matches appears
among the 1,000 queries with the largest top-one/top-two score margin.
Likewise, the 1,030 mutual-nearest assignments contain zero correct pairs.
The signal is therefore a population-level rank shift, not a usable
high-precision seed signal.
The next gating experiment should increase common relational information
without increasing language-private information:
1. preserve object identity across many images and text contexts;
2. use explicit visible transformations and relations rather than generic
encyclopedia prose;
3. measure confidence-calibrated seed precision, not only aggregate recall;
4. train the bridge only after a high-precision seed set can be recovered
without using the private permutation.
## Main artifacts
- `artifacts/vg_5k/diagnostics_region_closed.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k/graph_diagnostics_region_closed.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k/graph_diagnostics_region_closed_{500,1000,2000}.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k/graph_diagnostics_region_closed_mp3.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k_tiers/diagnostics_visible_relations.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k_tiers/graph_diagnostics_visible_relations.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k_tiers/diagnostics_qa_expanded.json`
- `artifacts/vg_5k_tiers/graph_diagnostics_qa_expanded.json`
|
