Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

CoRe-MMRAG: Cross-Source Knowledge Reconciliation for Multimodal RAG

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CoRe-MMRAG claims that a four-stage cross-source reconciliation pipeline—first answer from parametric memory, then select the best retrieved Wikipedia entry by joint image-text similarity, answer from it, and finally arbitrate between the…

desk verdict Solid and citable MMRAG reconciliation recipe, but the headline gains in the abstract don't match Table 3 and the SOTA framing is apples-to-oranges; fix the reporting and it's referee-ready. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02544 v2 pith:ZETC5DU7 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Yang Tian , Fan Liu , Jingyuan Zhang , Victoria W. , Yupeng Hu , Liqiang Nie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords multimodalretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledge-basedvisualquestionansweringparametric-retrievedknowledgeinconsistencyvisual-textualsourcereconciliationjointsimilarityassessmentfine-tuningobjectivesKB-VQA
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

Multimodal retrieval-augmented generation can fail in two ways: the model's internal parametric knowledge can disagree with the retrieved Wikipedia entry, and the image and text of a retrieved entry can point to different candidate answers. The paper's central claim is that both failures are separate, diagnosable problems and that a four-stage generation pipeline—answer from memory first, then select the best entry using image and text together, answer from that entry, then reconcile the two answers—mitigates both. With three fine-tuning objectives that teach knowledge-source preference, visual-textual agreement, and grounded answer generation, the method beats same-retriever, same-backbone baselines by 5.6 points on InfoSeek and 9.3 points on Encyclopedic-VQA. This matters because it suggests the bottleneck in multimodal RAG is not only retrieval quality but also how the model arbitrates between conflicting sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the four-stage prompt and, in particular, the joint similarity assessment in Stage 2. Instead of ranking the top-5 retrieved entries by textual similarity alone (as the two-stage baseline does) or by image similarity alone, the model scores each candidate using both its image and its text together, producing a single multimodal ranking $I_{tv}$ that resolves VTKI. Stage 4 then performs the parametric-retrieved arbitration: it compares the parametric answer $y_{\mathrm{int}}$ with the external answer $y_{\mathrm{ext}}$ and decides which is more credible, resolving PRKI. The three fine-tuning objectives ($\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PRKI}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{VTKI}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{SFT}}$) train the model to make each of these decisions correctly.

What would settle it

Run the same four-stage pipeline but replace Stage 2's joint image-text ranking with a text-only ranking (or an oracle selector that always picks the ground-truth entry). If the joint ranking yields no accuracy difference on the subset where Recall@5 holds, then the VTKI-reconciliation step is not carrying the claimed weight. Similarly, if a one-stage baseline given the same top-5 entries plus a one-line 'ignore noisy references' instruction matches the four-stage accuracy, then the reconciliation mechanism is unnecessary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper identifies and formalizes two types of knowledge inconsistency in multimodal RAG—Parametric-Retrieved Knowledge Inconsistency (PRKI), where the model's parametric answer differs from the retrieved-knowledge answer, and Visual-Textual Knowledge Inconsistency (VTKI), where the most relevant entry selected by image alone differs from the one selected by text alone. The central claim is that both can be substantially reduced by a four-stage reconciliation procedure: generate a parametric-only response, select the most relevant knowledge entry via a joint image-text similarity assessment, generate an external response from that entry, and then integrate the two responses into a final answer. The accompanying training paradigm adds three objectives—$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{PRKI}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{VTKI}}$, and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{SFT}}$—which respectively teach the model to prefer the knowledge source that yields the correct answer, to resolve visual-textual ranking disagreements, and to generate accurate answers from the ground-truth entry. On Qwen2-VL-7B, the full system reaches 46.5% on InfoSeek and 27.2% on Encyclopedic-VQA, with ablations showing each objective contributes to the gain.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline can only help when the correct Wikipedia entry is already among the top-5 retrieved candidates; with Recall@5 at 31.3% on Encyclopedic-VQA, most samples cannot receive the right external knowledge, so the measured gains depend on a weak retriever as the baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the four-stage reconciliation is the true cause of the gains, then simpler reranking pipelines that use the same retrieved candidates are leaving accuracy on the table for knowledge-based VQA.
  • The joint image-text selection step should generalize to any multimodal RAG setting where retrieved entries carry both an image and a text; text-only reranking is a bottleneck that joint scoring can remove.
  • The parametric-retrieved arbitration step is a lightweight, generation-time mechanism for making MLLMs robust to noisy retrieved knowledge, and the same answer-from-memory-then-arbitrate pattern could transfer to text-only RAG.
  • The three losses provide a practical recipe for fine-tuning MLLMs to select knowledge sources rather than blindly trusting retrieved context, which may help with other retrieval-augmented tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The measured gains may shrink or change if a stronger retriever is used, because reconciliation cannot help when the correct entry is absent from the candidate set; the reported improvements are therefore specific to the weak-retriever regime, a point the authors themselves acknowledge as a ceiling effect.
  • A cheaper alternative to the four-stage generation could be a cross-encoder reranker that jointly scores image and text; if such a reranker matches the Stage 2 selection quality, the generation-time reconciliation could be replaced by a retrieval-time fix.
  • The training-data construction filters for samples where one source alone yields the correct answer, which may bias the model toward sources that are individually right and away from cases where only their combination is correct.
  • A direct falsification test is to evaluate on the subset of samples where the ground-truth entry is within the top-5 retrieved candidates; if the four-stage pipeline shows no advantage over a one-stage baseline on that subset, its value lies mainly in suppressing retrieval noise rather than in improving selection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CoRe-MMRAG, a four-stage multimodal retrieval-augmented generation pipeline for knowledge-based VQA. It first generates an answer from parametric knowledge only, then performs a joint visual-textual relevance judgment over the top-k retrieved Wikipedia entries, generates an externally grounded answer, and finally reconciles the two answers. The training paradigm adds three objectives (LPRKI, LVTKI, LSFT) built from the model's own correctness-filtered outputs. Experiments on InfoSeek and Encyclopedic-VQA with Qwen2-VL-7B and an Eva-CLIP-8B retriever report improvements over reimplemented same-retriever baselines and claim 5.6% and 9.3% performance gains over baselines.

Significance. The narrow contribution is valuable: the four-stage design gives an explicit mechanism for handling parametric-retrieved and visual-textual inconsistencies, the ablation in Table 5 shows that each training objective contributes, and the authors reimplement prior pipelines on a common backbone, enabling same-retriever, same-base-model comparisons. The candid limitation section also acknowledges the retrieval ceiling and computational cost. However, the headline gains stated in the abstract are not verifiable from Table 3, and the claim of surpassing previous SOTAs is not supported once the retriever used by those SOTAs is taken into account. The central claim is defensible only in the restricted same-retriever comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1, Section 5, Table 3] The abstract, introduction, and conclusion claim 5.6% and 9.3% performance gains on InfoSeek and Encyclopedic-VQA, but no pairwise comparison in Table 3 yields these numbers. For InfoSeek, fine-tuned CoRe-MMRAG scores 46.5% versus 43.0% for Qwen2-VL-1-Stage (+3.5 percentage points, about 8.1% relative), and in the zero-shot setting 42.9% versus 40.9% (+2.0 points). For Enc-VQA, the fine-tuned comparison is 27.2% versus 24.3% (+2.9 points, about 11.9% relative), and the zero-shot comparison is 20.1% versus 17.9% (+2.2 points). No other baseline row in Table 3 produces 5.6% or 9.3%. The paper should either remove these headline numbers, identify the exact comparison (including any averaging that produces them), and recompute them consistently with Table 3.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 3 footnote] The claim of "surpassing previous SOTAs" is not supported by the reported setting. Table 3's own footnote shows that LLaVA-mR2AG reaches 55.1% on Enc-VQA using Google Lens retrieval with 62.5% Recall@5, whereas CoRe-MMRAG reaches 27.2% with Eva-CLIP retrieval at 31.3% Recall@5. The comparison across retrievers is not apples-to-apples, so the SOTA statement should be restricted to the same-retriever reimplementations or supported by additional runs of prior methods under the Eva-CLIP retrieval condition.
  3. [Section 6] The retrieval ceiling limits the scope of the central effectiveness claim. As the authors state, Recall@5 is 31.3% on Enc-VQA and 67.1% on InfoSeek, meaning that for roughly two-thirds of Enc-VQA samples the correct Wikipedia entry is not in the candidate set and the reconciliation stages cannot contribute positively. The reported gains are therefore conditional on retrieval success, and the conclusion that the framework "effectively mitigates" PRKI and VTKI should either be scoped to that conditional claim or supplemented with accuracy conditioned on whether the ground-truth entry was retrieved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 vs Section 4.4] The implementation details state that Qwen2-VL-2-Stage is optimized with LPRKI and LSFT, but the fine-tuned results paragraph says it is trained with LVTKI and LSFT; these statements should be reconciled.
  2. [Equations (9), (11), (12)] The training objectives are written with compact notation such as log M(ŷint | Q_j, P_j) and log arg max rM; please specify the exact token-level loss formulation and how the selected references are used in each objective.
  3. [Figure 3] The figure contains typographical errors in the axis labels: "GT-Refernce" and "Generation Accracy" should be corrected.
  4. [Table 4] Table 4 is presented as a zero-shot performance analysis but does not state in its caption that the numbers are for InfoSeek; please label the dataset explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed reconciliation pipeline and training objectives are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a four-stage parametric-first reconciliation pipeline with three training objectives (LPRKI, LVTKI, LSFT) improves KB-VQA accuracy over same-retriever baselines. Walking the derivation chain, no load-bearing equation reduces to its own input. The PRKI and VTKI definitions (Eqs. 1-2) are formal statements of inconsistency, not predictions derived from the framework. The joint similarity assessment (Eq. 5) and the final integration (Eq. 7) are prompted operations of the frozen-plus-fine-tuned MLLM; they are not fitted to the evaluation labels. The STaR-style self-training (Eqs. 8-10) uses the model's own outputs as candidate training instances, but those instances are filtered by external ground-truth correctness labels on the training split, and the reported metrics are on held-out unseen entities/questions. This is standard self-training, not a construction-level circularity: the evaluation result is not statistically forced by the training-filter definition. The abstract's 5.6%/9.3% gains do not trace exactly to any single pairwise row in Table 3, and the comparison to LLaVA-mR2AG uses a different retriever (Google Lens vs. Eva-CLIP); these are correctness/verifiability concerns, not circularity. The few self-citations (e.g., Liu et al. 2021 for Recall@k, Liu et al. 2018 in related work) are contextual or metric citations and are not load-bearing. The paper's own limitation section explicitly acknowledges a retrieval-quality ceiling, which further shows the reported gains are treated as empirical and conditional rather than as an inevitable consequence of the framework's definitions. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No free parameter is fitted in a statistical sense; the entries above are hand-chosen experimental design choices that materially affect the reported numbers. The two named inconsistencies are problem formulations introduced by the paper rather than independently established phenomena, and they carry the framework: if a stronger retriever or a different prompt template erased the inconsistency signal, the measured gains would change. The framework also rests on domain assumptions about benchmark labels, the retriever's sufficiency, the base model's joint ranking ability, and the validity of self-generated supervision.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of retrieved entries) = 5
    Set by hand following EchoSight-style pipelines; Table 4 shows accuracy changes when m is 1, 2, or 5, so this choice affects all reported results.
  • Fine-tuning sample size = 30K triplets per benchmark
    Chosen without stated justification in Section 4.3; the sizes of the filtered subsets Dint, Dext, Dv, and Dt (Eqs. 8-10) are not reported.
  • LoRA rank, learning rate, epochs = rank 8, 1e-4, 3 epochs
    Standard tuning choices from Section 4.3; no search or sensitivity analysis is reported, and all fine-tuned results depend on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The benchmark ground-truth Wikipedia entry is the correct knowledge source, and the official labels are the correct answers.
    Used to define I_gt (Eq. 10) and to filter self-generated outputs into Dint and Dext (Eq. 8); Enc-VQA evaluation additionally excludes two-hop questions, so the reported 4.7K test set is a subset of the official 5.8K split.
  • domain assumption Eva-CLIP-8B image-similarity search surfaces the correct Wikipedia article within the top-5 candidates.
    The whole pipeline consumes only the top-5 retrieved entries (Section 4.3); at 31.3% Recall@5 on Enc-VQA the assumption fails for most samples, a ceiling the authors acknowledge in Section 6.
  • domain assumption A single joint multimodal ranking (Eq. 5) is more reliable than either unimodal ranking (Eq. 4).
    This is the load-bearing premise of Step 2; its validation is indirect (Figure 3 and Table 4) and uses the same model and prompts being trained.
  • ad hoc to paper Correctness-filtered self-generated outputs are valid training supervision.
    STaR-style self-training (Section 3.3) keeps only samples where the model is already correct, which can lock in systematic errors; no comparison against gold-supervised training is given.
  • domain assumption The Step 4 prompt makes the model arbitrate evidence credibility rather than copy the retrieved answer.
    The final fusion y* = M(Q, yint, yext, entry) assumes faithful source comparison; the PRKI case study (Figure 5) shows recovery of parametric knowledge, but failure rates are not quantified.
invented entities (2)
  • Parametric-Retrieved Knowledge Inconsistency (PRKI)
    purpose: Names the conflict between parametric and retrieved knowledge as the problem Step 4 solves.
    Eq. 1 defines it as M(Q) does not equal M(Q,P), which holds whenever adding retrieval changes the output, so it is true by construction for any context-sensitive model; evidence is anecdotal (Figure 5) rather than an independent measurement.
  • Visual-Textual Knowledge Inconsistency (VTKI)
    purpose: Names the cross-modal ranking disagreement as the problem Step 2 solves.
    Eq. 2 defines it as disagreement between unimodal argmax rankings; it is measured only through the authors' own prompts (Figure 3), and no external benchmark of such disagreement is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoRe-MMRAG: Cross-Source Knowledge Reconciliation for Multimodal RAG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZETC5DU7

@misc{pith2026250602544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoRe-MMRAG: Cross-Source Knowledge Reconciliation for Multimodal RAG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZETC5DU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02544}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MMRAG) has been introduced to enhance Multimodal Large Language Models by incorporating externally retrieved multimodal knowledge, but it introduces two challenges: Parametric-Retrieved Knowledge Inconsistency (PRKI), where discrepancies between parametric and retrieved knowledge create uncertainty in determining reliability, and Visual-Textual Knowledge Inconsistency (VTKI), where misalignment between visual and textual sources disrupts entity representation. To address these challenges, we propose Cross-source knowledge \textbf{Re}conciliation for Multimodal RAG (CoRe-MMRAG), a novel end-to-end framework that effectively reconciles inconsistencies across knowledge sources. CoRe-MMRAG follows a four-stage pipeline: it first generates an internal response from parametric knowledge, then selects the most relevant multimodal evidence via joint similarity assessment, generates an external response, and finally integrates both to produce a reliable answer. Additionally, a specialized training paradigm enhances knowledge source discrimination, multimodal integration, and unified answer generation. Experiments on KB-VQA benchmarks show that CoRe-MMRAG achieves substantial improvements over baseline methods, achieving 5.6% and 9.3% performance gains on InfoSeek and Encyclopedic-VQA, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two types of knowledge inconsistency in MMRAG: (1) Parametric-Retrieved Knowledge Incon￾sistency, where parametric and retrieved external knowl￾edge generate conflicting answers to the same query. (2) Visual-Textual Knowledge Inconsistency, where mis￾alignments between visual and textual sources disrupt entity representation. ever, these models inherently suffer from hallu￾cination (Bai et al., 2024) and knowledge l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the CoRe-MMRAG Framework. CoRe-MMRAG processes a multimodal query and retrieved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effectiveness of Our Method in Mitigat￾ing PRKI and VTKI. Top: Evaluation of Parametric￾Retrieved Knowledge Reconciliation, comparing our proposed method with Qwen-2-VL-Param (Param) and Qwen2-VL-1-Stage (1-Stage) under zero-shot and fine￾tuned settings. Bottom: Evaluation of Visual-Textual Knowledge Reconciliation, showing that our method improves ground-truth entry recognition through both textual and visual modal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results on sample image-question pairs from the InfoSeek dataset. The leftmost column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative final answer outputs on sample image-question pairs from the InfoSeek dataset. The leftmost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. R3G: A Reasoning-Retrieval-Reranking Framework for Vision-Centric Answer Generation

    cs.CV 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    R3G improves vision-centric VQA by generating a reasoning plan before retrieval and reranking candidate images with an MLLM judge on relevance, target match, and answerability.

  2. Reason Before You Retrieve: Agentic Planning for Multi-modal RAG

    cs.AI 2026-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    MM-R2 claims SOTA multimodal RAG accuracy on InfoSeek and Encyclopedic VQA via intent grounding plus a 10-topic KnowledgeMap, but its teacher trajectories leak the gold Wikipedia page and omit the image.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Davide Caffagni, Federico Cocchi, Nicholas Moratelli, Sara Sarto, Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, and Rita Cucchiara

    Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18930, pages 1–40. Davide Caffagni, Federico Cocchi, Nicholas Moratelli, Sara Sarto, Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, and Rita Cucchiara

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al

    Can pre-trained vision and language models answer visual information-seeking questions? InProceed- ings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 14948–14968. Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al

    work page 2023

  3. [5]

    Wenbo Hu, Jia-Chen Gu, Zi-Yi Dou, Mohsen Fayyaz, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, pages 1–21. Wenbo Hu, Jia-Chen Gu, Zi-Yi Dou, Mohsen Fayyaz, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi

    Llava- onevision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326, pages 1–43. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023a. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training with frozen image encoders and large lan- guage models. InInternational Conference on Ma- chine Learning, pages 19730–19742. PMLR. Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun ...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [8]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sas- try, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al

    Rora-vlm: Robust retrieval-augmented vision lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08876, pages 1–15. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sas- try, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Dustin Schwenk, Apoorv Khandelwal, Christopher Clark, Kenneth Marino, and Roozbeh Mottaghi

    Gemini 1.5: Un- locking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, pages 1–154. Dustin Schwenk, Apoorv Khandelwal, Christopher Clark, Kenneth Marino, and Roozbeh Mottaghi

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhi- hao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al

    Eva-clip: Improved train- ing techniques for clip at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389, pages 1–7. Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhi- hao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al

    arXiv

  8. [11]

    Xiao Wang, Jianlong Wu, Zijia Lin, Fuzheng Zhang, Di Zhang, and Liqiang Nie

    Qwen2-vl: Enhanc- ing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, pages 1–52. Xiao Wang, Jianlong Wu, Zijia Lin, Fuzheng Zhang, Di Zhang, and Liqiang Nie

    arXiv

Show all 15 references
  1. [12]

    Zhenfei Yin, Jiong Wang, Jianjian Cao, Zhelun Shi, Dingning Liu, Mukai Li, Xiaoshui Huang, Zhiy- ong Wang, Lu Sheng, Lei Bai, et al

    Minicpm-v: A gpt-4v level mllm on your phone.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01800, pages 1–26. Zhenfei Yin, Jiong Wang, Jianjian Cao, Zhelun Shi, Dingning Liu, Mukai Li, Xiaoshui Huang, Zhiy- ong Wang, Lu Sheng, Lei Bai, et al

    arXiv

  2. [15]

    spring of the kid

    These examples demonstrate that the presence of noisy information in external data can negatively impact the model’s ability to express accurate para- metric knowledge, leading to incorrect outputs. In such PRKI scenarios, our proposed model effec- tively mitigates this issue....

    1929

  3. [2019]

    Scotland

    Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations, pages 1–43. A Appendix A.1 Prompts In this section, we present the prompts used in dif- ferent MMRAG pipelines, including Qwen2-VL- Param, Qwen2-VL-Oracle, Qwen2-VL-1-Sta...

    1901

  4. [2021]

    InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021, page 1296–1305

    Interest-aware message-passing gcn for recommendation. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021, page 1296–1305. ACM. Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. 2024a. A survey on hallucination in large visio...

    2021 arXiv

  5. [2022]

    Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15476–15488. Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. 2024a. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine ...

    arXiv

  6. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, pages 1–100

    Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, pages 1–100. Omar Adjali, Olivier Ferret, Sahar Ghannay, and Hervé Le Borgne

    arXiv

  7. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 2024 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 16499–16513

    Multi-level information retrieval augmented generation for knowledge-based visual question answering. InProceedings of the 2024 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 16499–16513. Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech,...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.