Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

MAGE: Multimodal Alignment and Generation Enhancement via Bridging Visual and Semantic Spaces

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new projection module, IAN, paired with a generation-and-distance dual loss, lets MAGE beat larger multimodal models while using only 144 visual tokens.

desk verdict A competent systems paper with an incrementally new projector and a useful tool-calling dataset, but the headline benchmark claim is confounded by training-recipe differences. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21741 v1 pith:6OH3BPB6 submitted 2025-07-29 cs.CV cs.MM

Shaojun E , Yuchen Yang , Jiaheng Wu , Yan Zhang , Tiejun Zhao , Ziyan Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.MM
keywords MAGEmultimodallargelanguagemodelvisualprojectorcross-modalalignmenttokencompressiondual-losstrainingtoolcallingAny-to-Anygeneration
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 models lose information when visual features pass through the projector into the language model, and the paper proposes MAGE as a fix. MAGE's Intelligent Alignment Network (IAN) separates the job into two blocks: one aligns the vector dimension of CLIP features to the LLM, and the other injects local patch detail through cross-modal self-attention. Training combines an image-to-text generation loss with an image-text distance minimization loss, so the projector learns to place images near their captions in embedding space. The paper reports that with only 144 visual tokens, MAGE beats comparable 7B and 13B systems on MME, MMBench, and SEED, and that a new tool-scheduling dataset, HMDSet, lets the model call external generators for images, audio, and video. A sympathetic reader would care because the result points to a cheaper alignment path: fewer tokens, better scores, and a clear separation of alignment from semantic enrichment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Intelligent Alignment Network (IAN), made of the Vector Alignment Block (VAB) and the Semantic Enhancement Block (SEB). VAB is a nonlinear MLP plus learnable normalization that converts $N \times D_v$ encoder embeddings into $N \times D_l$ LLM-dimensional embeddings; SEB uses a CNN patch embedding as query and the VAB output as key/value in self-attention, so local detail is added without changing the aligned dimension. The training mechanism is the composite loss $L = L_{\text{ITG}} + L_{\text{ITDM}}$, where the generation term is autoregressive cross-entropy and the distance term is mean squared error between the IAN-mapped image vector and the LLM-encoded caption vector. The paper also relies on the observation that 2D pooling at the patch level can reduce visual tokens without a Q-Former, which is what lets IAN operate at 144 tokens.

What would settle it

Re-run the Stage 2 recipe with IAN replaced by a plain linear projector, keeping the same 980K samples, the same full fine-tuning, and the same dual loss. If MMBench and SEED stay near 71.2 and 65.3, then the projector is not the cause; if removing the ITDM loss alone reproduces the 'w/o align.' numbers, then the MSE term is not doing the claimed work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dimensional mismatch and semantic loss are separate problems and should be solved by separate modules. The Vector Alignment Block (VAB) is an MLP with learnable normalization that maps visual embeddings from the encoder dimension to the LLM dimension while retaining context; the Semantic Enhancement Block (SEB) then runs cross-modal self-attention where a CNN patch embedding acts as query and the VAB-aligned global embedding acts as key and value, fusing local and global information. The dual-loss strategy adds an image-text distance minimization (ITDM) MSE term to the usual image-text generation (ITG) cross-entropy loss, so the aligned image vector is pushed toward the LLM's encoding of the caption. The authors demonstrate the claim with ablations; removing IAN, the alignment loss, or both progressively lowers scores on MMBench, SEED, MME, and POPE, and a matched-token projector comparison places IAN above linear, Resampler, and C-Abstractor on spatial reasoning tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that IAN and the dual loss cause the benchmark gains assumes the comparisons are fair, even though MAGE fully fine-tunes CLIP and the LLM on a different 980K-sample mix and the 'w/o IAN' ablation does not state whether it uses those same settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As reported, MAGE with 144 tokens reaches MMBench 71.2 (7B) and 73.9 (13B), surpassing LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-NeXT, and TokenPacker at 256 or 576 tokens.
  • On six spatial tasks in MMBench and SEED-Bench, the IAN projector wins the normalized average over Linear, Resampler, and C-Abstractor at matched token counts.
  • The ablations show each component matters: removing IAN drops SEED from 65.3 to 62.9, removing the alignment loss drops it to 61.4, and removing both drops it to 60.9.
  • The token-scaling table shows monotonic gains from 64 to 144 to 256 tokens and from 7B to 13B, which is consistent with the efficiency claim.
  • With HMDSet training, the model outputs structured JSON tool plans and can chain image-to-text, text-to-audio, and text-to-video tools for composite generations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: VAB/SEB decoupling should transfer to other visual encoders and LLMs; the design principle is that dimension matching and semantic enrichment can be trained separately, which is not restricted to CLIP and Vicuna.
  • Inference: The ITDM MSE target is a single LLM-encoded caption; a testable extension would use learned anchors or multiple caption embeddings to make the distance signal more stable and less sensitive to the caption.
  • Inference: HMDSet, released with the code, could serve as a benchmark for multimodal tool scheduling; its manual review of GPT-4 dialogues gives it a quality bar that future datasets can be measured against.
  • Inference: The 144-token results suggest a practical latency/accuracy tradeoff; measuring throughput and memory at 144 vs 576 tokens on the same hardware would quantify the efficiency benefit the paper claims.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes MAGE, a vision-language model architecture with three components: IAN (Vector Alignment Block plus Semantic Enhancement Block), a dual-loss training objective (ITG and ITDM), and an HMDSet tool-use dataset. It reports MME, MMBench, SEED-Bench, and POPE results for Vicuna-7B/13B with 64-256 visual tokens, claiming state-of-the-art performance with 144 tokens, and shows example tool-calling workflows for text-to-image, text-to-video, and image-to-audio/video generation.

Significance. If the architecture and losses are responsible for the reported gains, the result would be practically useful: with 144 tokens, MAGE matches or exceeds models using 256 or 576 tokens, and the structured JSON tool-use interface extends the model toward compound multimodal generation. The paper has potentially informative internal comparisons in Table 4, where IAN is ranked against Linear, Resampler, and C-Abstractor at matched token counts, and the ablations in Table 3 are directionally consistent. The authors also promise complete code and an appendix, which would support reproducibility. However, the headline benchmark comparison is confounded by full fine-tuning and a different data schedule, and several load-bearing implementation details are underspecified, so the significance is currently conditional on a controlled evaluation.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] The central claim that IAN and the dual loss deliver the reported state-of-the-art accuracy is not supported by Table 1 as presented. Section 4.1 states that MAGE fine-tunes all parameters, including CLIP and the LLM, and uses roughly 980K samples in Stage 2, while the published baselines cited in Table 1 (e.g., LLaVA-1.5 and Honeybee C/D-Abstractor) are typically trained with a frozen vision encoder and/or a frozen LLM and with smaller or different data mixtures. For example, LLaVA-1.5 keeps CLIP frozen and uses 665K visual instruction samples, and Honeybee's published rows use a frozen vision encoder and frozen LLM. The 6.9-point MMBench gap over LLaVA-1.5 and even the smaller gap over D-Abstractor can therefore reflect full fine-tuning and extra data rather than the proposed IAN module. To support the attribution, the authors should either train the baselines under the same full-fine-tuning recipe and data schedule or clearly report the freeze flags, data, and schedule for every row in Table 1.
  2. [§3.1, SEB Module] The dimensions in the SEB description are inconsistent. The text says the CNN produces b ∈ R^(N×D_b) as the query, while a ∈ R^(N×D_l) is used as key and value, and the output V'' is declared to be in R^(N×D_l). In standard attention, the output follows the query dimension, so if D_b differs from D_l the attention output would not be D_l-dimensional unless an additional projection exists. Please specify D_b, state whether a projection maps the query to D_l, and give the exact ordering of operations, since IAN is the core architectural contribution.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] The ITDM loss is not well defined. Equation (2) compares d_ian and d_llm, but the manuscript does not state how d_ian is derived from the IAN output, how d_llm is derived from the LLM, which LLM layer is used, or how per-token embeddings are aggregated into a single vector per sample. Without this specification, the dual-loss training strategy cannot be reproduced, and it is unclear whether the two vectors are even in the same dimensional space. Please give the exact computation for both quantities.
  4. [§4.4-4.5, Tables 3-4] The internal comparisons meant to isolate the effect of IAN do not state whether the rows are controlled. Table 3 removes the IAN projector and the alignment strategy, and Table 4 compares Linear, Resampler, C-Abstractor, and IAN, but neither table reports whether all rows share the same data mixture, freeze flags, learning rate, number of steps, and loss weights. Since Section 4.1 specifies full fine-tuning of all parameters, the 'w/o IAN proj.' and 'w/o IAN & align.' rows must state whether they also fine-tune CLIP and the LLM, or the ablation does not isolate the proposed components. Please add a sentence for Tables 3 and 4 specifying the controlled recipe.
  5. [§4.6] The tool-use/tool-calling contribution is only demonstrated with three hand-picked examples in Figure 4 and is not evaluated quantitatively. There is no reported metric for task-planning accuracy, tool-call validity, end-to-end task success, or human preference, so the claim that HMDSet 'extends the model's output capability boundaries' is not verified. A small evaluation with task success rates or human ratings would be needed to make this contribution testable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2] Stage 2 says the 665K mixture is combined with ALLaVA-Instruct-VFLAN-4V to reach about 980K samples, but Table 2 does not list ALLaVA or its sample count; please correct the table-text mismatch.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] Y is defined as the aligned visual embedding, but the loss is computed over text tokens y_i; the notation should clearly distinguish visual tokens from text tokens.
  3. [Tables 1, 3-5] The paper reports no variance or repeated runs; please state whether these are single-run results and, where feasible, include seed information or standard deviation.
  4. [§4.2] Avg N is introduced as a normalized average but its formula and normalization constants are not given; please provide the definition or cite the exact source.
  5. [§4.4, Table 3] The abbreviation 'align.' is not defined in the table caption or the surrounding text; it should be expanded to 'dual-loss alignment strategy' at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark claims are evaluated on external test sets, and the IAN/dual-loss attribution is supported by within-pipeline ablations; the main caveat is a comparison-recipe confound, which is a fairness concern rather than a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: MAGE is trained with standard vision-language objectives and then evaluated on external benchmarks (MME, MMBench, SEED-Bench, POPE) whose test data are not used for training or for fitting any parameter. The IAN projector and the ITG+ITDM losses are defined directly in Section 3, and the reported gains are measured on those held-out benchmarks, so no claimed quantity reduces to its own input by construction. The ablation in Table 3 removes IAN and/or the alignment loss and shows performance drops, providing an internal control for the proposed components. The only notable weakness is an attribution confound: Section 4.1 states that MAGE fine-tunes all parameters including CLIP and the LLM on roughly 980K samples, whereas some published baselines in Table 1 (e.g., LLaVA-1.5, Honeybee) use frozen encoders or smaller data mixtures; Tables 3 and 4 do not explicitly state that every ablation row shares the same training recipe. This is a legitimate concern about whether the benchmark gains are caused by the proposed architecture, but it is not circular under the enumerated patterns: it does not involve fitting to the evaluation data, renaming a known result, or justifying a premise solely by self-citation. The paper's derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper's central empirical claim is not a derivation; it rests on modeling choices (loss weighting, token count) and untested assumptions about embeddings and benchmark validity. There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • ITG/ITDM loss weighting = 1:1 (default)
    Equation (3) sums the cross-entropy and MSE losses with equal weight; no ablation or tuning is reported for this ratio, so the balance is a hand-chosen constant that affects the alignment strength.
  • Number of visual tokens = 144 (default)
    The model pools visual features to 144 tokens for the main comparisons. Table 5 explores 64/144/256, but the efficiency claim relies on the 144-token default.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CLIP ViT-L/14 penultimate-layer features (excluding CLS token) are a sufficient visual representation for multimodal understanding.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and Section 4.1; if this representation misses important spatial information, the alignment method cannot recover it.
  • domain assumption L2 distance in the LLM's embedding space is a meaningful measure of semantic similarity for alignment.
    Used in the ITDM loss (Eq. 2); the paper does not justify why mean-squared error on these embeddings improves alignment rather than distorting features.
  • domain assumption The text embedding target d_llm used in Eq. (2) is well-defined and reproducible.
    The paper never specifies which text (caption, instruction, or generated response) is encoded, at which layer, or with what pooling; the method cannot be replicated without this detail.
  • domain assumption Standard benchmarks (MME, MMBench, SEED, POPE) are valid proxies for multimodal capability and are not contaminated by the training data.
    The central claim depends on these measured scores; no contamination analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MAGE: Multimodal Alignment and Generation Enhancement via Bridging Visual and Semantic Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OH3BPB6

@misc{pith2026250721741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MAGE: Multimodal Alignment and Generation Enhancement via Bridging Visual and Semantic Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OH3BPB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21741}
}
read the original abstract

In the latest advancements in multimodal learning, effectively addressing the spatial and semantic losses of visual data after encoding remains a critical challenge. This is because the performance of large multimodal models is positively correlated with the coupling between visual encoders and large language models. Existing approaches often face issues such as vector gaps or semantic disparities, resulting in information loss during the propagation process. To address these issues, we propose MAGE (Multimodal Alignment and Generation Enhancement), a novel framework that bridges the semantic spaces of vision and text through an innovative alignment mechanism. By introducing the Intelligent Alignment Network (IAN), MAGE achieves dimensional and semantic alignment. To reduce the gap between synonymous heterogeneous data, we employ a training strategy that combines cross-entropy and mean squared error, significantly enhancing the alignment effect. Moreover, to enhance MAGE's "Any-to-Any" capability, we developed a fine-tuning dataset for multimodal tool-calling instructions to expand the model's output capability boundaries. Finally, our proposed multimodal large model architecture, MAGE, achieved significantly better performance compared to similar works across various evaluation benchmarks, including MME, MMBench, and SEED. Complete code and appendix are available at: https://github.com/GTCOM-NLP/MAGE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) an example of an attention map from the IAN. (middle) The attention matrix of a visual token obtained after passing through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The detailed aspects of MAGE. IAN consists of two components: vector alignment and semantic enhancement. The encoded vec￾tors encapsulate rich semantic knowledge, enabling the LLM to decompose and plan instructions into different subtasks, thereby scheduling various tool models to fulfill user instructions. The Vector Alignment Module maps visual feature vectors to a dimensional space consistent with the LLM input, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hierarchical Workflow of the Proposed Agent Framework.This figure illustrates a hierarchical process for generating an image of a boy with a companion. The process includes task planning, task assignment, task execution, and final output.). Hierarchical Architecture and Output Format of the Agent The unique aspect of this multimodal agent lies in its ability to call the required toolset in a structured JSON format b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure shows an example of how our model ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning

    [Alayrac et al., 2022] Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 35:23716–23736,

    work page 2022

  2. [6]

    Uniter: Universal image-text representa- tion learning

    [Chen et al., 2020] Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. Uniter: Universal image-text representa- tion learning. In European conference on computer vision, pages 104–120. Springer,

    work page 2020

  3. [7]

    Geoqa: A geometric question answering benchmark to- wards multimodal numerical reasoning

    [Chen et al., 2021] Jiaqi Chen, Jianheng Tang, Jinghui Qin, Xiaodan Liang, Lingbo Liu, Eric P Xing, and Liang Lin. Geoqa: A geometric question answering benchmark to- wards multimodal numerical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14517,

    arXiv 2021

  4. [9]

    Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P

    [Chiang et al., 2023] Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. Vicuna: An open-source chat- bot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality, March

    2023

  5. [10]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with in- struction tuning,

    [Dai et al., 2023] Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, An- thony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with in- struction tuning,

    work page 2023

  6. [11]

    Nvlm: Open frontier-class multimodal llms

    [Dai et al., 2024] Wenliang Dai, Nayeon Lee, Boxin Wang, Zhuolin Yang, Zihan Liu, Jon Barker, Tuomas Rinta- maki, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro, and Wei Ping. Nvlm: Open frontier-class multimodal llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11402,

    arXiv 2024

  7. [12]

    Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multi- modal large language models,

    [Fu et al., 2024] Chaoyou Fu, Peixian Chen, Yunhang Shen, Yulei Qin, Mengdan Zhang, Xu Lin, Jinrui Yang, Xiawu Zheng, Ke Li, Xing Sun, Yunsheng Wu, and Rongrong Ji. Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multi- modal large language models,

    work page 2024

  8. [13]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent col- laborative framework

    [Hong et al., 2023] Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent col- laborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352 ,

    arXiv 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [14]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    [Hu et al., 2021] Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685,

    2021 arXiv

  2. [15]

    Dvqa: Understanding data visu- alizations via question answering

    [Kafle et al., 2018] Kushal Kafle, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Christopher Kanan. Dvqa: Understanding data visu- alizations via question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 5648–5656,

    2018

  3. [17]

    Value: A multi-task benchmark for video-and-language understand- ing evaluation

    [Li et al., 2021] Linjie Li, Jie Lei, Zhe Gan, Licheng Yu, Yen-Chun Chen, Rohit Pillai, Yu Cheng, Luowei Zhou, Xin Eric Wang, William Yang Wang, et al. Value: A multi-task benchmark for video-and-language understand- ing evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04632,

    2021 arXiv

  4. [18]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training for unified vision-language understanding and generation

    [Li et al., 2022] Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International conference on machine learn- ing, pages 12888–12900. PMLR,

    2022

  5. [19]

    Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal llms with generative compre- hension

    [Li et al., 2023a] Bohao Li, Rui Wang, Guangzhi Wang, Yuying Ge, Yixiao Ge, and Ying Shan. Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal llms with generative compre- hension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16125,

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    Evaluating ob- ject hallucination in large vision-language models

    [Li et al., 2023c] Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evaluating ob- ject hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10355,

    arXiv

  7. [21]

    Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models

    [Li et al., 2024a] Feng Li, Renrui Zhang, Hao Zhang, Yuan- han Zhang, Bo Li, Wei Li, Zejun Ma, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07895,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    Tokenpacker: Efficient visual projector for multi- modal llm

    [Li et al., 2024b] Wentong Li, Yuqian Yuan, Jian Liu, Dongqi Tang, Song Wang, Jie Qin, Jianke Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Tokenpacker: Efficient visual projector for multi- modal llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02392,

    arXiv

  9. [24]

    Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images

    [Mathew et al., 2021] Minesh Mathew, Dimosthenis Karatzas, and CV Jawahar. Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , pages 2200–2209,

    2021

  10. [25]

    Hello gpt-4o

    [OpenAI, 2024] OpenAI. Hello gpt-4o. https://openai.com/ index/hello-gpt-4o/,

    2024

  11. [26]

    [Radford et al., 2021a] Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al

    Accessed: 2024-5-13. [Radford et al., 2021a] Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Int...

    2024

  12. [27]

    Hug- ginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face

    [Shen et al., 2024] Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. Hug- ginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36,

    2024

  13. [28]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    [Team et al., 2023] Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Mil- lican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

    2023 arXiv

  14. [29]

    Attention is all you need

    [Vaswani, 2017] A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,

    2017

  15. [31]

    Introduction to convolutional neural networks

    [Wu, 2017] Jianxin Wu. Introduction to convolutional neural networks. National Key Lab for Novel Software Technol- ogy. Nanjing University. China, 5(23):495,

    2017

  16. [32]

    Deco: De- coupling token compression from semantic abstraction in multimodal large language models

    [Yao et al., 2024] Linli Yao, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Lean Wang, Yuanxin Liu, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. Deco: De- coupling token compression from semantic abstraction in multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20985,

    2024 arXiv

  17. [33]

    Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models

    [Yu et al., 2022] Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01917,

    2022 arXiv

  18. [34]

    Flo- rence: A new foundation model for computer vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11432,

    [Yuan et al., 2021] Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, et al. Flo- rence: A new foundation model for computer vision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11432,

    2021 arXiv

  19. [35]

    Easygen: Easing multimodal generation with bidiffuser and llms

    [Zhao et al., 2024] Xiangyu Zhao, Bo Liu, Qijiong Liu, Guangyuan Shi, and Xiao-Ming Wu. Easygen: Easing multimodal generation with bidiffuser and llms. In Pro- ceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers) , pages...

    2024

  20. [36]

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:46595– 46623, 2023

    [Zheng et al., 2023] Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:46595– 46...

    2023

  21. [2017]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhanc- ing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution

    [Wang et al., 2024] Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shi- jie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhanc- ing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191,

    2024 arXiv

  22. [2018]

    Ocr-free document understanding trans- former

    [Kim et al., 2022] Geewook Kim, Teakgyu Hong, Moonbin Yim, JeongYeon Nam, Jinyoung Park, Jinyeong Yim, Wonseok Hwang, Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, and Se- unghyun Park. Ocr-free document understanding trans- former. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 498–517. Springer,

    2022

  23. [2020]

    Honeybee: Locality-enhanced projector for multimodal llm

    [Cha et al., 2024] Junbum Cha, Wooyoung Kang, Jonghwan Mun, and Byungseok Roh. Honeybee: Locality-enhanced projector for multimodal llm. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13817–13827,

    2024

  24. [2021]

    Allava: Harnessing gpt4v-synthesized data for a lite vision-language model

    [Chen et al., 2024] Guiming Hardy Chen, Shunian Chen, Ruifei Zhang, Junying Chen, Xiangbo Wu, Zhiyi Zhang, Zhihong Chen, Jianquan Li, Xiang Wan, and Benyou Wang. Allava: Harnessing gpt4v-synthesized data for a lite vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11684,

    2024 arXiv

  25. [2022]

    Claude 3.5 sonnet

    [Anthropic, 2024] Anthropic. Claude 3.5 sonnet. https: //www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet,

    2024

  26. [2023]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    [Brown et al., 2020] Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ry- der, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems,...

    2020

  27. [2024]

    [Bai et al., 2023] Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shi- jie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou

    Ac- cessed: 2024-7-21. [Bai et al., 2023] Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shi- jie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-vl: A versatile vision- language model for understanding, localization, text read- ing, and beyond. arXiv preprin...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [2025]

    Chartqa: A bench- mark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning

    [Masry et al., 2022] Ahmed Masry, Do Xuan Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque. Chartqa: A bench- mark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244,

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.