Leveraging Large Vision-Language Model as User Intent-Aware Encoder for Composed Image Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) aims to retrieve target images from candidate set using a hybrid-modality query consisting of a reference image and a relative caption that describes the user intent. Recent studies attempt to utilize Vision-Language Pre-training Models (VLPMs) with various fusion strategies for addressing the task. However, these methods typically fail to simultaneously meet two key requirements of CIR: comprehensively extracting visual information and faithfully following the user intent. In this work, we propose CIR-LVLM, a novel framework that leverages the large vision-language model (LVLM) as the powerful user intent-aware encoder to better meet these requirements. Our motivation is to explore the advanced reasoning and instruction-following capabilities of LVLM for accurately understanding and responding the user intent. Furthermore, we design a novel hybrid intent instruction module to provide explicit intent guidance at two levels: (1) The task prompt clarifies the task requirement and assists the model in discerning user intent at the task level. (2) The instance-specific soft prompt, which is adaptively selected from the learnable prompt pool, enables the model to better comprehend the user intent at the instance level compared to a universal prompt for all instances. CIR-LVLM achieves state-of-the-art performance across three prominent benchmarks with acceptable inference efficiency. We believe this study provides fundamental insights into CIR-related fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".