Object-centric (OC) representations, which model visual scenes as compositions of discrete objects, have the potential to be used in various downstream tasks to achieve systematic compositional generalization and facilitate reasoning. However, these claims have yet to be thoroughly validated empirically. Recently, foundation models have demonstrated unparalleled capabilities across diverse domains, from language to computer vision, positioning them as a potential cornerstone of future research for a wide range of computational tasks. In this paper, we conduct an extensive empirical study on representation learning for downstream Visual Question Answering (VQA), which requires an accurate compositional understanding of the scene. We thoroughly investigate the benefits and trade-offs of OC models and alternative approaches including large pre-trained foundation models on both synthetic and real-world data, ultimately identifying a promising path to leverage the strengths of both paradigms. The extensiveness of our study, encompassing over 600 downstream VQA models and 15 different types of upstream representations, also provides several additional insights that we believe will be of interest to the community at large.

Representing uncertainty in causal discovery is a crucial component for experimental design, and more broadly, for safe and reliable causal decision making. Bayesian Causal Discovery (BCD) offers a principled approach to encapsulating this uncertainty. Unlike non-Bayesian causal discovery, which relies on a single estimated causal graph and model parameters for assessment, evaluating BCD presents challenges due to the nature of its inferred quantity – the posterior distribution. As a result, the research community has proposed various metrics to assess the quality of the approximate posterior. However, there is, to date, no consensus on the most suitable metric(s) for evaluation. In this work, we reexamine this question by dissecting various metrics and understanding their limitations. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we find that many existing metrics fail to exhibit a strong correlation with the quality of approximation to the true posterior, especially in scenarios with low sample sizes where BCD is most desirable. We highlight the suitability (or lack thereof) of these metrics under two distinct factors: the identifiability of the underlying causal model and the quantity of available data. Both factors affect the entropy of the true posterior, indicating that the current metrics are less fitting in settings of higher entropy. Our findings underline the importance of a more nuanced evaluation of new methods by taking into account the nature of the true posterior, as well as guide and motivate the development of new evaluation procedures for this challenge.