Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

VIKSER: Visual Knowledge-Driven Self-Reinforcing Reasoning Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read VIKSER claims that a 7B-parameter vision-language model, augmented with fine-grained visual knowledge and a self-reflection loop, beats or matches much larger proprietary models on six visual reasoning benchmarks.

desk verdict VIKSER is a coherent integration of known ideas with real-looking gains, but its self-reflection trigger is undefined at inference time, which makes the headline numbers unverifiable as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00711 v2 pith:NTSL4PPT submitted 2025-02-02 cs.CV cs.AI

Chao Wang , Chunbai Zhang , Yongxiao Tian , Yang Zhou , Yan Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords visualreasoningfine-grainedknowledgerelationshipdetectiondistillationself-reflectionchain-of-evidencepromptingquestionparaphrasingvision-languagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

VIKSER is a two-stage framework for visual reasoning. It first extracts fine-grained visual knowledge—entity relationships, causal inferences, and rich image captions—using a module trained on pseudo-ground-truth distilled from a large language model. It then reasons with that knowledge: a paraphraser repairs underspecified questions, a Chain-of-Evidence prompt forces step-by-step reasoning grounded in the extracted facts, and a self-reflection loop retries when the predicted answer is judged unsatisfactory. The paper's central claim is that this gradient-free pipeline lifts a 7-billion-parameter open VLM to state-of-the-art accuracy on VQAv2, A-OKVQA, VizWiz, COLA, CREPE, and e-SNLI-VE, in several cases surpassing or matching ChatGPT-5. If true, it would show that interpretable, evidence-grounded reasoning and self-correction can substitute for raw model scale in visual question answering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the fine-grained visual knowledge caption C produced by the F-VKE module, together with the self-refining loop in Ag-SR. The F-VKE module uses CoVLM-style visual relationship detection with a joint entity-relation validity score to identify key entities and relations, then a causal analyzer Ga and caption generator Gc—both fine-tuned from LLaVa-1.5-7B on ChatGPT-4o-distilled pseudo-ground-truth—turn those relations into an enriched caption that includes inferred outcomes. The S-RR module then uses C to paraphrase the question, uses Chain-of-Evidence prompting to force evidence-grounded reasoning, and maps the predicted answer to a binary reward S_ref; on a negative reward it generates a verbal reflection V_ref that guides a new reasoning attempt, up to three iterations.

What would settle it

Take a held-out subset of VQAv2 and run three variants: VIKSER with self-reflection enabled, VIKSER with self-reflection disabled, and VIKSER with self-reflection enabled but the reward score computed by an oracle that checks against ground-truth answers. If the no-oracle variant fails to beat the no-reflection variant while the oracle variant does, the claim of label-free self-correction is falsified; the difference between the two reflection variants also quantifies how much of the reported gain depends on hidden answer information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers that grounding a lightweight VLM in fine-grained visual evidence is sufficient to close the gap with much larger proprietary models. Concretely, the F-VKE module converts an image into a description of key entities, their visual relationships, causal analyses of their likely behavior, and a detailed caption; the S-RR module then answers the question by paraphrasing it with the caption's object-level information, reasoning step by step with evidence, and reflecting on its own failed trajectories. The reported numbers—88.74% on VQAv2, 82.52% on VizWiz, 49.49% on COLA, 96.68% on CREPE, and 89.62% on e-SNLI-VE—frame the contribution as a new state of the art achieved without fine-tuning the reasoning backbone at inference time and with far fewer parameters than the proprietary baselines it is compared with.

Load-bearing premise

The self-reflection mechanism must be able to decide at inference time whether a predicted answer is satisfactory without seeing the ground truth, yet the paper never specifies what the predicted answer is matched against to compute the binary reward.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any VLM can be wrapped in VIKSER's S-RR prompt paradigm without re-training, so the reasoning gains should transfer to other backends; the paper shows consistent improvements with LLaVa, Qwen-2.5, ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-5.
  • Underspecified questions, a known failure mode in VQA, can be repaired automatically from object-level caption information.
  • Evidence-based prompting (CoE) reduces hallucination relative to plain chain-of-thought, since the model must anchor each step in an extracted fact.
  • The self-reflection mechanism should make the system robust to first-pass errors, at the cost of up to three inference passes.
  • Because the framework is gradient-free at reasoning time, accuracy gains do not require additional supervised training on the target dataset.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The design suggests that a large share of the reported gain may come from the enriched caption itself rather than from self-reflection; an ablation that feeds the same caption into a baseline with plain CoT prompting would isolate the caption's contribution.
  • The binary reward S_ref is described only as an 'exact matching mechanism' with no specification of the matched target; if that target is the ground-truth answer, the method is best understood as answer-verification-based retries rather than label-free self-improvement, and its open-ended question gains may be smaller than reported.
  • A natural stress test is to apply the framework to questions whose answers are genuinely open-ended or to adversarial images where the causal analyzer's LLM-distilled priors are wrong; the framework's ceiling may then be set by the teacher LLM's biases.
  • The same F-VKE captioning pipeline could be reused beyond VQA, for example in embodied planning or video next-action prediction, by extending the causal analyzer from still images to temporal sequences.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VIKSER, a visual reasoning framework composed of an F-VKE module that extracts fine-grained visual knowledge via visual relationship detection (CoVLM) and LLM-distilled causal analysis/caption generation, and an S-RR module that paraphrases underspecified questions, performs Chain-of-Evidence prompting, and applies a self-reflection mechanism. Experiments on VQAv2, A-OKVQA, VizWiz, COLA, CREPE, and e-SNLI-VE report new state-of-the-art results, with VIKSER built on LLaVa-1.5-7B outperforming or matching proprietary models such as ChatGPT-5 on several metrics.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper would demonstrate that a comparatively small, gradient-free, interpretable reasoning pipeline can compete with much larger proprietary VLMs, which is a meaningful empirical contribution. The framework is clearly decomposed into modular agents, and the qualitative case studies and cross-backend adaptation experiments (Table IV) provide useful evidence of generalizability. The appendices give substantial implementation detail, including prompts and distillation templates. However, the central reproducibility and statistical validity concerns described below currently prevent full confidence in the claimed state-of-the-art results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B0b, Appendix B0a, Appendix C0c, Table V] The self-reflection trigger Sref is never defined. The text says Ag-SR uses "an exact matching mechanism to map complex natural language information in ~a to a two-dimensional discrete binary reward score Sref," but it does not state what the predicted answer is matched against. At inference time there is no ground truth, so the match must be against labels (leakage), an unspecified template, or an unspecified judge. The self-reflection prompt in Figure 17 explicitly states that the previous trial "was unsuccessful," presupposing knowledge of failure. If Sref requires ground-truth answers, the +10.88-point gain from reflection in Table V is label-leaked and the main SOTA claim is invalidated. The manuscript must specify the trigger mechanism and, if labels were used, rerun the experiments without them.
  2. [Section IV-C, Table V] The text claims that "the lower section of Table V" shows F-VKE ablations and that the LLaVA-1.5-based variant drops by approximately 15% without F-VKE, but Table V as printed contains only four rows: VIKSER, W/O Paraphraser, W/O Reflection, and W/O Paraphraser and Reflection. The F-VKE ablation results are missing, so the claimed importance of the F-VKE module is asserted without supporting numerical evidence. Please provide the missing rows or correct the reference to a table that actually contains them.
  3. [Table II, Section IV-A] The claimed state-of-the-art margins over ChatGPT-5 are very small (0.06 points on VQAv2, 0.37 points on VizWiz, and 0.37 points on A-OKVQA MC), yet the paper reports no error bars, no multiple runs, and no significance tests. In addition, many baseline scores are imported from other papers (only those marked † were re-run), so the comparison may reflect different evaluation protocols. The central "new SOTA" claim is therefore not statistically supported as presented. Please provide variance estimates or multiple-seed results, and clearly describe the evaluation protocol for all baselines and for VIKSER.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A0a] The notation θe r is inconsistent with the subscript style used elsewhere; please use a clear subscript like θe_r and define the ranges of Se and Sr.
  2. [Abstract, throughout] The name "VIKS ER" appears with a stray space in multiple places; please fix the typography for the method name.
  3. [Section IV-A] In the sentence "for CREPE, e further evaluate Recall@1 (R@1)", the stray "e" should be removed.
  4. [Figure 10] The VIKSER panel shows a paraphrased question about fruit ("What type of fruit is cut in half...") for the cupcake example; this appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected to the cupcake-related paraphrased question.
  5. [Appendix B0b] The manuscript states that 500 annotated pairs are distilled and used to fine-tune LLaVa-1.5-7B, but it does not specify the source imagery or how the trained Ga and Gc are applied to the six different test datasets; please clarify the training-data origin and whether the same distillation dataset is used for all target domains.
  6. [References] Several reference entries have formatting issues, such as missing spaces in titles or author lists; a careful proofread of the reference list is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the self-reflection trigger Sref is unspecified, creating a label-leakage risk rather than a demonstrated circular step.

full rationale

VIKSER is an empirical pipeline, not a formal derivation: the numbered equations are a relationship-scoring heuristic (Eq. 1) and LLM-distillation losses (Eqs. 4, 5, 8), and the benchmark claims are external evaluations against VQAv2, A-OKVQA, VizWiz, COLA, CREPE, and e-SNLI-VE. No equation redefines a predicted quantity as its own input, no parameter is fitted to a subset and renamed a prediction, and there are no author self-citations carrying a uniqueness claim. The one load-bearing under-specification is in Section III-B0b and Appendix B0a: Sref is produced by an "exact matching mechanism" whose reference target is never stated, and Appendix B0a stops at "a satisfactory result is obtained" with no definition of satisfaction. If the exact match is against the dataset answer key, the reflection loop would be an oracle selector and the W/O REFLECTION ablation (88.74 vs 77.86) would not measure reasoning; but the paper does not say this, so the flaw is an omitted specification and reproducibility risk rather than a provable circular step. Score 1 reflects that this central trigger is unverified, while the rest of the system is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces software agents and modules (Ag-VRD, Ag-VKR, Ag-SPR, Ag-SR) but no new physical or mathematical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are about the reliability of proprietary LLMs as teachers and filters, the existence of an inference-time success signal, and the comparability of heterogeneous baseline scores.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma = 0.1
    Controls the influence of the number of visual relationships on the relationship weight in the joint entity-relation validity score (Equation 1).
  • alpha = 4
    Limits the number of visual relationships per key entity; the paper says alpha=4 standardizes extraction of about four key entities per image.
  • theta_e_r = 0.55
    Validity threshold for labeling a visual relationship as a key visual relationship.
  • tau = 0.6
    Validity score cutoff for filtering noisy LLM-generated pseudo-ground-truth data in Equations 3 and 7.
  • max_reflection_iterations = 3
    Maximum number of self-reflection attempts used across all experiments, set in Appendix B0a.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ChatGPT-4o-generated pseudo-ground-truth causal reports and captions are accurate enough to train Ga and Gc after threshold filtering.
    Equations 2 through 8 use ChatGPT-4o as the sole teacher; the validity filter F is another proprietary MLLM, so no independent ground truth verifies the distilled knowledge.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained MLLM F reliably scores the validity of generated reports and captions.
    Equation 3 and Equation 7 rely on F to decide which pseudo-labels survive filtering, but the paper provides no analysis of F's error rate.
  • ad hoc to paper An exact matching mechanism can assign binary success or failure to a predicted answer without ground truth at inference.
    Section III-B0b introduces Sref but never specifies what the predicted answer is matched against during test time; labeled answers are not available then.
  • domain assumption CoVLM's visual relationship detections provide a correct grounding of key entities.
    The F-VKE module builds the preliminary image description D directly from CoVLM detections and relationship scores, so errors in CoVLM propagate into captions and reasoning.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed hyperparameters generalize across all six datasets.
    The paper sets gamma=0.1, alpha=4, theta_e_r=0.55, and tau=0.6 once and applies them everywhere, without sensitivity analysis or per-dataset validation.
  • domain assumption Baseline scores collected from different papers are comparable under a single evaluation protocol.
    Table II and Table III mix reproduced baselines with scores sourced from official repositories and prior studies; the paper does not show that answer preprocessing and evaluation splits are identical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VIKSER: Visual Knowledge-Driven Self-Reinforcing Reasoning Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTSL4PPT

@misc{pith2026250200711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VIKSER: Visual Knowledge-Driven Self-Reinforcing Reasoning Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTSL4PPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00711}
}
read the original abstract

Visual reasoning refers to the task of solving questions about visual information. Current visual reasoning methods typically employ pre-trained vision-language model (VLM) strategies or deep neural network approaches. However, existing efforts are constrained by limited reasoning interpretability, while hindering by the phenomenon of underspecification in the question text. Additionally, the absence of fine-grained visual knowledge limits the precise understanding of subject behavior in visual reasoning tasks. To address these issues, we propose VIKSER (Visual Knowledge-Driven Self-Reinforcing Reasoning Framework). Specifically, VIKSER, trained using knowledge distilled from large language models, extracts fine-grained visual knowledge with the assistance of visual relationship detection techniques. Subsequently, VIKSER utilizes fine-grained visual knowledge to paraphrase the question with underspecification. Additionally, we design a novel prompting method called Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), which leverages the power of "evidence for reasoning" to endow VIKSER with interpretable reasoning capabilities. Meanwhile, the integration of self-reflection technology empowers VIKSER with the ability to learn and improve from its mistakes. Experiments conducted on widely used datasets demonstrate that VIKSER achieves new state-of-the-art (SOTA) results in relevant tasks. Moreover, VIKSER achieves performance on par with leading proprietary models, such as the latest ChatGPT-5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical example of visual reasoning. This task requires an agent to accurately align the image with the question and infer the intent through multi-step logical reasoning. Additionally, underspecification is a common phenomenon in visual reasoning tasks [9], [15], where a ambiguous description of the subject in the question text can hinder the alignment between textual and visual features, leading to multiple inco… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of VIKSER. Starting with the input image and question, VIKSER first extracts the relationships between key entities in the image and analyzes these relationships to form a detailed image caption. Then, VIKSER uses the image caption to paraphrase the question, refining the ambiguous descriptions in the question. Finally, VIKSER infers a predicted answer based on the paraphrased question, the image, and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Process of utilizing knowledge distillation from LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative performance of different methods on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of VIKSER’s F-VKE module and base￾lines in generating captions for two images. Caption： The image features a black and white cat sitting on a table in front of a television. The cat appears to be watching the TV screen, which displays a picture of another c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparative performance between VIKSER with CoE prompting and VIKSER with CoT prompting on three representative visual reasoning tasks. Flan-T5-XXL [51], and GPT-4o-mini. It is worth noting that, due to the comparatively smaller parameter scales of LLaVa￾1.5, Qwen-2.5,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The performance of VIKSER on two practical visual reasoning cases. and the baseline models in addressing a visual reasoning task involving true/false questions. All baseline models fail to achieve satisfactory results in this task, especially Blip2-Flan-t5- xxl using C…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance of VIKSER and baselines on a visual reasoning task involving a true/false question. V. LIMITATIONS Despite the significant improvements achieved by VIKSER in visual reasoning tasks compared to existing methods, several limitations remain: 1) In Ag-VRD, we …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance of VIKSER and baselines on a visual reasoning task involving short-answer questions. Question： What is the white substance on top of the cupcakes? Answer： icing. Caption: A hand is skillfully decorating a cupcake with frosting and a raspberry ... The frosti…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance of VIKSER and baselines on a visual reasoning task involving short-answer questions. powerful LLMs as alternative teacher models could poten￾tially improve performance. 3) In Ag-SR, the self-reflection mechanism may fail to identify critical insights from …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The prompt for paraphrasing the question text with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The example of the template used for fine-turning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The prompt for the CoE prompting technique. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The prompt for the self-reflection mechanism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Augmented Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Review

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured taxonomy of inference-time augmentation techniques that connect vision-language models to external symbolic systems, tools, and knowledge sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Paligemma 2: A family of versatile vlms for transfer,

    A. Steiner, A. S. Pinto, M. Tschannen, D. Keysers, X. Wang, Y . Bitton, A. Gritsenko, M. Minderer, A. Sherbondy, S. Long et al., “Paligemma 2: A family of versatile vlms for transfer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03555, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding,

    A. Kamath, M. Singh, Y . LeCun, G. Synnaeve, I. Misra, and N. Carion, “Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 1780–1790

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Omni-smola: Boosting generalist multimodal models with soft mixture of low-rank experts,

    J. Wu, X. Hu, Y . Wang, B. Pang, and R. Soricut, “Omni-smola: Boosting generalist multimodal models with soft mixture of low-rank experts,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 14 205–14 215

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cola: A benchmark for compositional text-to-image retrieval,

    A. Ray, F. Radenovic, A. Dubey, B. Plummer, R. Krishna, and K. Saenko, “Cola: A benchmark for compositional text-to-image retrieval,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Visual programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training,

    T. Gupta and A. Kembhavi, “Visual programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2023, pp. 14 953–14 962

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Interpretable visual reasoning: A survey,

    F. He, Y . Wang, X. Miao, and X. Sun, “Interpretable visual reasoning: A survey,” Image and Vision Computing , vol. 112, p. 104194, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Rapper: Reinforced rationale-prompted paradigm for natural language explanation in visual question answering,

    K.-P. Chang, C.-P. Huang, W.-Y . Cheng, F.-E. Yang, C.-Y . Wang, Y .-H. Lai, and Y .-C. F. Wang, “Rapper: Reinforced rationale-prompted paradigm for natural language explanation in visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) . OpenReview, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.n...

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Rephrase, augment, reason: Visual grounding of questions for vision-language models,

    A. Prasad, E. Stengel-Eskin, and M. Bansal, “Rephrase, augment, reason: Visual grounding of questions for vision-language models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations ,

  2. [10]

    Toward multi-granularity decision- making: Explicit visual reasoning with hierarchical knowledge,

    Y . Zhang, S. Chen, and Q. Zhao, “Toward multi-granularity decision- making: Explicit visual reasoning with hierarchical knowledge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 2573–2583

    2023

  3. [11]

    Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art multimodal models,

    M. Deitke, C. Clark, S. Lee, R. Tripathi, Y . Yang, J. S. Park, M. Salehi, N. Muennighoff, K. Lo, L. Soldaini et al., “Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17146, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vision–language model for visual question answering in medical imagery,

    Y . Bazi, M. M. A. Rahhal, L. Bashmal, and M. Zuair, “Vision–language model for visual question answering in medical imagery,” Bioengineering, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 380, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Lingoqa: Visual question answering for autonomous driving,

    A.-M. Marcu, L. Chen, J. Hünermann, A. Karnsund, B. Hanotte, P. Chidananda, S. Nair, V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, J. Shotton et al., “Lingoqa: Visual question answering for autonomous driving,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 252–269

    2024

  6. [14]

    Vqa and visual reasoning: An overview of recent datasets, methods and challenges,

    R. Y . Zakari, J. W. Owusu, H. Wang, K. Qin, Z. K. Lawal, and Y . Dong, “Vqa and visual reasoning: An overview of recent datasets, methods and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13296 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dealing with semantic underspecification in multimodal nlp,

    S. Pezzelle, “Dealing with semantic underspecification in multimodal nlp,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05240 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Open visual knowledge extraction via relation-oriented multimodality model prompting,

    H. Cui, X. Fang, Z. Zhang, R. Xu, X. Kan, X. Liu, Y . Yu, M. Li, Y . Song, and C. Yang, “Open visual knowledge extraction via relation-oriented multimodality model prompting,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  9. [18]

    Pv2tea: Patching visual modality to textual-established information extraction,

    H. Cui, R. Lin, N. Zalmout, C. Zhang, J. Shang, C. Yang, and X. Li, “Pv2tea: Patching visual modality to textual-established information extraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01016 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Recurrent fusion network for image captioning,

    W. Jiang, L. Ma, Y .-G. Jiang, W. Liu, and T. Zhang, “Recurrent fusion network for image captioning,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , September 2018

    2018

  11. [20]

    Boosting image captioning with attributes,

    T. Yao, Y . Pan, Y . Li, Z. Qiu, and T. Mei, “Boosting image captioning with attributes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , Oct 2017

    2017

  12. [21]

    Promptcap: Prompt-guided image captioning for vqa with gpt-3,

    Y . Hu, H. Hua, Z. Yang, W. Shi, N. A. Smith, and J. Luo, “Promptcap: Prompt-guided image captioning for vqa with gpt-3,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2023, pp. 2963–2975

    2023

  13. [22]

    Injecting semantic concepts into end-to-end image captioning,

    Z. Fang, J. Wang, X. Hu, L. Liang, Z. Gan, L. Wang, Y . Yang, and Z. Liu, “Injecting semantic concepts into end-to-end image captioning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022, pp. 18 009–18 019

    2022

  14. [23]

    Visual common- sense based heterogeneous graph contrastive learning,

    Z. Li, X. Zhu, X. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and Z. Lei, “Visual common- sense based heterogeneous graph contrastive learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06553, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Covlm: Composing visual entities and relationships in large language models via communicative decoding,

    J. Li, D. Chen, Y . Hong, Z. Chen, P. Chen, Y . Shen, and C. Gan, “Covlm: Composing visual entities and relationships in large language models via communicative decoding,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11...

    2024

  16. [25]

    Bridging knowledge graphs to generate scene graphs,

    A. Zareian, S. Karaman, and S.-F. Chang, “Bridging knowledge graphs to generate scene graphs,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, and J.-M. Frahm, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 606–623

    2020

  17. [26]

    Co-training improves prompt-based learning for large language models,

    H. Lang, M. N. Agrawal, Y . Kim, and D. Sontag, “Co-training improves prompt-based learning for large language models,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 11 985–12 003

    2022

  18. [27]

    Large language model as attributed training data generator: A tale of diversity and bias,

    Y . Yu, Y . Zhuang, J. Zhang, Y . Meng, A. J. Ratner, R. Krishna, J. Shen, and C. Zhang, “Large language model as attributed training data generator: A tale of diversity and bias,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 199–22 213, 2022

    2022

  20. [29]

    Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model,

    X. Chen, X. Wang, S. Changpinyo, A. Piergiovanni, P. Padlewski, D. Salz, S. Goodman, A. Grycner, B. Mustafa, L. Beyer et al., “Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    e-vil: A dataset and benchmark for natural language explanations in vision-language tasks,

    M. Kayser, O.-M. Camburu, L. Salewski, C. Emde, V . Do, Z. Akata, and T. Lukasiewicz, “e-vil: A dataset and benchmark for natural language explanations in vision-language tasks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 1244–1254

    2021

  22. [31]

    Nlx-gpt: A model for natural language explanations in vision and vision- language tasks,

    F. Sammani, T. Mukherjee, and N. Deligiannis, “Nlx-gpt: A model for natural language explanations in vision and vision- language tasks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2203.05081, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05081

    2022 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Improving vision-and-language reasoning via spatial relations modeling,

    C. Yang, R. Xu, Y . Guo, P. Huang, Y . Chen, W. Ding, Z. Wang, and H. Zhou, “Improving vision-and-language reasoning via spatial relations modeling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , January 2024, pp. 769–778

    2024

  24. [33]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, brian ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V . Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. H. Oh, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, and K. Cho, Eds....

    2022

  26. [35]

    Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning,

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao, “Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering,

    Y . Goyal, T. Khot, D. Summers-Stay, D. Batra, and D. Parikh, “Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 6904–6913

    2017

  28. [37]

    A-okvqa: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowledge,

    D. Schwenk, A. Khandelwal, C. Clark, K. Marino, and R. Mottaghi, “A-okvqa: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowledge,” in European conference on computer vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 146–162

    2022

  29. [38]

    Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people,

    D. Gurari, Q. Li, A. J. Stangl, A. Guo, C. Lin, K. Grauman, J. Luo, and J. P. Bigham, “Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2018

    2018

  30. [39]

    @ crepe: Can vision-language foundation models reason compositionally?

    Z. Ma, J. Hong, M. O. Gul, M. Gandhi, I. Gao, and R. Krishna, “@ crepe: Can vision-language foundation models reason compositionally?” in Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 910–10 921. [Online]. Available...

    2023

  31. [40]

    Qwen2.5-vl,

    Q. Team, “Qwen2.5-vl,” January 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl/

    2025

  32. [41]

    4o mini: Advancing cost-efficient intelligence, 2024,

    G. OpenAI, “4o mini: Advancing cost-efficient intelligence, 2024,” URL: https://openai. com/index/gpt-4o-mini-advancing-cost-efficient- intelligence, 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    Hello gpt-4o,

    OpenAI, “Hello gpt-4o,” https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/, 2024, accessed 15 March 2025

    2024

  34. [43]

    Introducing gpt-5,

    ——, “Introducing gpt-5,” https://openai.com/zh-Hans-CN/index/ introducing-gpt-5/, 2025, published on 2025-08-09. Accessed: 2025-08-22

    2025

  35. [44]

    Learning to localize objects improves spatial reasoning in visual-llms,

    K. Ranasinghe, S. N. Shukla, O. Poursaeed, M. S. Ryoo, and T.-Y . Lin, “Learning to localize objects improves spatial reasoning in visual-llms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 12 977–12 987

    2024

  36. [45]

    Himix: Reducing computational complexity in large vision-language models,

    X. Zhang, D. Li, B. Liu, Z. Bao, Y . Zhou, B. Yang, Z. Liu, Y . Zhong, Z. Zhao, and T. Yuan, “Himix: Reducing computational complexity in large vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10318 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Eliminating the language bias for visual question answering with fine- grained causal intervention,

    Y . Liu, G. Bai, L. Chenji, S. Li, Z. Zhang, R. Liu, and W. Guo, “Eliminating the language bias for visual question answering with fine- grained causal intervention,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  38. [47]

    Multi-agents based on large language models for knowledge-based visual question answering,

    Z. Hu, P. Yang, B. Li, and Z. Wang, “Multi-agents based on large language models for knowledge-based visual question answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18351, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Diversify, rationalize, and combine: Ensembling multiple qa strategies for zero-shot knowledge-based vqa,

    M. Li, H. Li, Z. Du, and B. Li, “Diversify, rationalize, and combine: Ensembling multiple qa strategies for zero-shot knowledge-based vqa,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12746 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Harnessing the power of multi-task pretraining for ground-truth level natural language explanations,

    B. Plüster, J. Ambsdorf, L. Braach, J. H. Lee, and S. Wermter, “Harnessing the power of multi-task pretraining for ground-truth level natural language explanations,” CoRR, vol. abs/2212.04231, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.04231

    2022 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    Coarse-to-fine contrastive learning in image-text-graph space for improved vision-language compositionality,

    H. Singh, P. Zhang, Q. Wang, M. Wang, W. Xiong, J. Du, and Y . Chen, “Coarse-to-fine contrastive learning in image-text-graph space for improved vision-language compositionality,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13812, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. Hoi, “Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 19 730–19 742

    2023

  43. [2024]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=L4nOxziGf9

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=L4nOxziGf9

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.