arXiv:2608.06972cs.CV2026-08

测试嵌入向量能否让模型生成内容,发现现有评估忽略了信息丢失问题。

Generative Embedding Benchmark: How Much Information Survives in a Dense Embedding?

论文配图:Generative Embedding Benchmark: How Much Information Survives in a Dense Embedding?
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用解码器仅凭嵌入向量和问题生成答案,评估信息可恢复性。
  • 视觉嵌入在测试集上得分28.25~33.21,融合图像后最高达65.56。
  • 适合关注嵌入向量真实表达能力的研究者和系统开发者。

嵌入向量已成为基础模型与下游系统之间的标准接口。现有嵌入基准多基于判别任务或空间可分性评估,但高性能未必意味着原始内容仍可被下游生成器访问。为此,我们提出生成式嵌入基准(GEB),要求解码器仅使用冻结的嵌入向量和问题文本回答问题,无法访问原始图像或中间视觉特征。答案质量反映生成信息量:从嵌入中可恢复的问答相关内容。GEB包含一个精心构建的视觉问答数据集,含1,800个开发集样本和900个测试集样本,涵盖自然图像、场景文字和视觉文档。在统一解码器和训练流程下,评估了七种公开嵌入模型在纯视觉与视觉-语言联合模式下的表现。测试集上,纯视觉模式得分28.25至33.21;加入图像-问题联合编码后,所有五种基于视觉语言模型的嵌入模型得分均提升,最优达65.56。匹配嵌入优于纯文本输入、零嵌入及打乱嵌入。自然图像信息比场景文字和视觉文档更易恢复,而拥有原始图像访问权限的Qwen3-VL-2B参考模型得分高达84.30。结果表明,生成式读出能揭示分离性评估所忽略的信息瓶颈。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Embeddings have emerged as a standard representational interface linking foundation models with downstream systems. Most embedding benchmarks assess representations through discriminative tasks or geometric criteria centered on separability in embedding space. However, strong performance on such evaluations does not establish whether content compressed into an embedding remains accessible to a downstream generator. To address this gap, we introduce the Generative Embedding Benchmark (GEB), in which a decoder answers questions using only a frozen embedding and question text, without access to the original image or intermediate visual features. Answer quality under this readout measures generative information: the answer-relevant content recoverable from an embedding. GEB includes a curated visual-question-answering dataset with a 1,800-item development split and a held-out 900-item test split covering natural images, scene text, and visual documents. Using a common decoder and training recipe, we evaluate seven public embedding models in visual-only and vision-language joint modes. On the test set, visual-only scores range from 28.25 to 33.21; with image-question joint encoding, all five VLM-based embedding models score higher, and the best reaches 65.56. Matched embeddings also outperform text-only inputs, zero embeddings, and shuffled embeddings. Natural-image information is much easier to recover than scene text or visual-document information, while a Qwen3-VL-2B reference with access to the original image reaches 84.30. Together, these results show that generative readout exposes information bottlenecks that separability-based evaluation does not capture.

嵌入评估生成能力视觉语言模型

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。