Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Hierarchical Contextual Grounding LVLM: Enhancing Fine-Grained Visual-Language Understanding with Robust Grounding

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-pass coarse-to-fine architecture lifts fine-grained VQA and grounding while halving hallucination.

desk verdict A sensible coarse-to-fine LVLM sketch whose SOTA claim collapses because the baseline numbers in Table I don't match the cited papers, and no code or protocol is provided. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16974 v1 pith:MMP3D26X submitted 2025-08-23 cs.CV

Leilei Guo , Antonio Carlos Rivera , Peiyu Tang , Haoxuan Ren , Zheyu Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords HCG-LVLMvisualgroundingfine-grainedquestionansweringreferringexpressioncomprehensionhallucinationreductionhierarchicalvision-languagemodellocaldetailenhancementsemanticconsistencyvalidation
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

The paper sets out to show that a large vision-language model becomes more accurate and less prone to hallucination on fine-grained tasks if it processes an image twice: first to grasp the whole scene, then to zoom into the regions that matter and verify the query's details against the actual pixels. The proposed HCG-LVLM couples a pre-trained global LVLM with a local detail enhancement module and a semantic consistency validator, fusing both passes adaptively. On GQA, A-OKVQA, and RefCOCO it reports gains over Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4, plus a human-evaluated hallucination rate roughly half that of MiniGPT-4. The contribution, if it holds, is a general architectural pattern rather than a single new dataset or loss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a cascade of three parts: Global Contextual Perception, a pre-trained ViT-plus-LLM backbone that outputs coarse region proposals; Local Detail Enhancement, which crops each proposed region and re-encodes it at higher resolution; and a Semantic Consistency Validator, which computes a similarity or contrastive score between each local feature and the text query embedding. An adaptive fusion layer then combines global and local evidence. The design's purpose is to force fine-grained claims to be checked against image patches rather than generated from global statistics.

What would settle it

Run the exact GQA, A-OKVQA, and RefCOCO evaluations using the public checkpoints of Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4 with the same prompts, decoding settings, and preprocessing, and recompute Table I; if any baseline meets or exceeds 61.3% on GQA, 68.2% IoU on RefCOCO, or 35.0% on A-OKVQA, the claimed state-of-the-art result is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that coarse-to-fine hierarchical processing improves fine-grained visual-language understanding: a first pass over the whole image produces coarse region proposals, and a second pass crops those regions, extracts higher-resolution features, and scores them against the text query, so the final answer is grounded in verified local evidence. Concretely, the paper reports 61.3% accuracy on GQA, 35.0% on A-OKVQA, and 68.2% IoU on RefCOCO, exceeding the quoted scores for Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4 on all three, and a hallucination rate of 9.5% versus MiniGPT-4's 18.2%. The ablations attribute the gain to the local detail enhancer and the semantic consistency validator together, not to the global backbone alone.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the reported baseline scores for Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4; if those published numbers are not measured under the same protocol or are inaccurate, the claimed gains lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full model should beat its own global-only backbone by roughly 3.5 points on GQA and 3.7 IoU on RefCOCO, matching the reported ablation.
  • Removing the Semantic Consistency Validator should reduce accuracy and raise hallucination in attribute-heavy queries such as color and size judgments.
  • Adaptive fusion should outperform simple concatenation when global and local evidence conflict, because low-consistency local regions can be down-weighted.
  • The reported latency increase over MiniGPT-4 (145 ms versus 110 ms per query) is the price of the accuracy and grounding gains, under the paper's efficiency measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, the same coarse-to-fine two-pass pattern could be added to other single-pass vision-language models as a modular post-processor: crop attention-highlighted regions, re-encode them, and gate the answer on local consistency, without retraining the whole backbone.
  • A testable extension the paper does not run is varying the global layer's proposal quality, for example comparing ground-truth boxes against noisy attention crops; the architecture predicts that better proposals amplify the final gains on RefCOCO more than on GQA.
  • The hallucination reduction is reported from one 200-sample human study; a natural follow-up is to decompose hallucinations into object-presence, attribute, and spatial-relation errors, since local verification should suppress the object-presence and attribute types more strongly.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HCG-LVLM, a hierarchical architecture for fine-grained visual question answering and referring expression comprehension, combining a global contextual perception layer with a fine-grained local grounding layer that includes a Local Detail Enhancement Module, a Semantic Consistency Validator, and an adaptive fusion mechanism. The authors report state-of-the-art results on GQA (61.3%), A-OKVQA (35.0%), and RefCOCO (68.2% IoU), outperforming Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4, along with a lower hallucination rate in a human evaluation. The core claim is that the hierarchical design improves fine-grained understanding and grounding. However, the experimental evidence presented is insufficient to support this claim: the baseline numbers conflict with published results, the experimental protocol is incomplete, no code or data are provided, and the human evaluation lacks statistical grounding.

Significance. If the reported results were reliable, the hierarchical grounding architecture would be a useful and plausible contribution to the LVLM literature, as the idea of combining global context with local verification to reduce hallucination is conceptually attractive. The paper also includes a human evaluation and an error analysis, which are welcome in principle. However, the manuscript's central quantitative claim rests on baseline numbers that appear inconsistent with the cited sources, and the absence of a reproducible experimental protocol means the significance cannot be assessed. The paper is better characterized as a position/architecture proposal than as an empirical demonstration, and in its current form it does not establish the claimed state-of-the-art performance.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The baseline numbers for Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4 on GQA, RefCOCO, and A-OKVQA are not consistent with the cited publications. For example, BLIP-2's GQA accuracy in its original paper is in the low 40s, not 59.5, and MiniGPT-4's ICLR 2024 paper does not report GQA 60.1 or RefCOCO 67.3. Since the claimed improvements over these baselines are only 0.9-3.2 points, replacing the baseline rows with published values would erase or invert the reported gains, making the central claim of consistent state-of-the-art performance unsupported.
  2. [Section IV-A] The experimental setup omits essential protocol details: the specific test splits for GQA and RefCOCO, the evaluation metric definitions (e.g., exact match vs. open-ended accuracy for GQA), the number of runs, random seeds, and model checkpoint sources are not specified. No code or trained models are provided, so the reported HCG-LVLM numbers cannot be independently reproduced, and the claimed improvements are therefore not verifiable.
  3. [Section IV-D and Table III] The human evaluation is based on 200 samples with no description of the annotation instructions, item-level score distributions, inter-annotator agreement, or a precise definition of the hallucination rate. No error bars or statistical tests are reported, so the claimed hallucination reduction (9.5% vs. 18.2%) is not statistically grounded and may not be reliable.
  4. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract and conclusion claim results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, but Table I reports only RefCOCO, and no results for RefCOCO+ or RefCOCOg appear anywhere in the manuscript. This mismatch means the stated scope of the empirical claim is not met.
  5. [Sections III-A to III-C and Table II] Equations (1)-(5) are high-level functional definitions rather than a concrete model specification. The paper does not describe how the region proposals A_G are generated, how the local encoder is parameterized, how the similarity function and fusion weights are computed, or how the consistency loss L_consistency is combined with task losses. The ablation study in Table II reports single numbers without variance or significance testing, so the individual contributions of LDE, SCV, and adaptive fusion are not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I and IV] The paper repeatedly calls the baselines 'state-of-the-art' but does not compare against any of the more recent methods listed in the related work (e.g., InstructBLIP, HiVG, patch-aligned training), which limits the relevance of the comparison.
  2. [Table VI] The efficiency comparison does not specify the hardware, batch size, or model variant for the latency measurements, and the Flamingo parameter count (80B) is given without stating which Flamingo variant is used; these details are needed to interpret the comparison.
  3. [References] Several references appear mismatched to their citing context, such as a schizophrenia bulletin article used to support hallucination in LVLMs and a CVPR 2025 reference for REC evaluation that is not clearly related to the claims made; the reference list should be checked for accuracy.
  4. [Section IV-D] The human evaluation reports five annotators but does not disclose their qualifications, whether they were authors, or how disagreements were resolved; this information is necessary to assess the reliability of the scores.
  5. [Table I] Table I would benefit from a caption note specifying the exact metric for each dataset (e.g., GQA test-dev accuracy, RefCOCO testA/testB IoU) and from error bars or confidence intervals, as the small margins between models are otherwise difficult to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the architectural equations are definitions, the reported numbers are empirical measurements, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

full rationale

The paper's equations (1) through (5) are component definitions rather than derivations: Eq. (1) defines the overall model as a fusion of global and local processing, Eq. (2) defines the global layer's output as that of a pre-trained LVLM, Eq. (3) defines local features as encoder outputs on cropped patches, Eq. (4) defines a similarity score, and Eq. (5) defines the final fusion. None of these equations predicts the reported GQA, A-OKVQA, RefCOCO, or hallucination numbers; those numbers are asserted as empirical measurements in Table I, Table II, and Table III. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the ablations in Table II compare actual configurations, and the "Base LVLM" row (57.8 GQA, 64.5 RefCOCO) is empirically below the full model, so the claimed component contributions are not forced by construction. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the references point to external systems (Flamingo, BLIP-2, MiniGPT-4), external datasets, and external related work, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The Semantic Consistency Validator in Eq. (4) is described as a mechanism intended to reduce hallucination, but the 9.5% versus 18.2% hallucination contrast is presented as a human-evaluation result, not as a logical consequence of the equation. Concerns that the Table I baseline numbers are inconsistent with the cited papers' published results, and that the paper omits code, checkpoints, test splits, and evaluation protocol, are serious correctness and reproducibility risks, but they are not circularity: they do not make the claimed outputs equivalent by construction to the paper's inputs. Under the stated rules, no circular step can be exhibited, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper introduces several module names without concrete specifications, making them effectively free design choices. The method relies on unspecified base checkpoints and annotation subsets. No independent evidence for the new entities is provided.

free parameters (4)
  • number of region proposals N
    The method does not specify how many regions are proposed or how they are chosen, which is a free design choice affecting the local grounding layer.
  • local encoder architecture
    The local encoder is described only as a CNN or smaller ViT; its architecture and resolution are free choices.
  • similarity function weights
    The consistency score kernel and the contrastive or triplet loss weights are not specified.
  • fusion weights
    The adaptive fusion mechanism's parameters are not described, so they are fit without published details.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A pre-trained ViT-L/14 and LLaMA-7B backbone used as the global layer is available and can be fine-tuned for the target datasets.
    Stated in Section IV.A.1, but no details on the base checkpoint used.
  • domain assumption Fine-grained annotations (bounding boxes or segmentation masks) are available for a subset of the training data and can be used to train the local layer.
    Mentioned in training details but not which subset or how it is selected.
  • domain assumption The human evaluation protocol is reliable, with 5 blind annotators scoring 200 samples, but the criteria and agreement metrics are not reported.
    Section IV.D describes the protocol vaguely, assuming it is valid.
invented entities (3)
  • Local Detail Enhancement Module (LDE)
    purpose: Extracts high-resolution local features from region proposals.
    No independent validation or ablation-specific implementation is shown.
  • Semantic Consistency Validator (SCV)
    purpose: Verifies visual-textual consistency to reduce hallucination.
    The claimed hallucination reduction is only self-reported without the module's actual mechanism.
  • Adaptive Fusion Mechanism
    purpose: Combines global and local outputs.
    Described as attention or gating, but no details or isolated evaluation beyond entire model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Contextual Grounding LVLM: Enhancing Fine-Grained Visual-Language Understanding with Robust Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMP3D26X

@misc{pith2026250816974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Contextual Grounding LVLM: Enhancing Fine-Grained Visual-Language Understanding with Robust Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMP3D26X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16974}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Large Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in natural language processing and multimodal understanding. Despite their impressive generalization capabilities, current LVLMs often exhibit insufficient robustness, proneness to hallucination, and reasoning errors in complex real-world scenarios, particularly when precise image region localization and fine-grained visual reasoning are required. To address these limitations, we propose the Hierarchical Contextual Grounding LVLM (HCG-LVLM), a novel architecture that mimics human coarse-to-fine cognitive processing. HCG-LVLM employs a two-layered approach: a Global Contextual Perception layer for initial broad understanding and a Fine-grained Local Grounding layer. The latter incorporates a Local Detail Enhancement Module to extract high-resolution features and a Semantic Consistency Validator to ensure accurate, hallucination-free visual-language alignment. Through an adaptive fusion mechanism, information from both layers is integrated for robust and precise outputs. Extensive experiments on challenging datasets, including GQA, A-OKVQA for fine-grained VQA, and RefCOCO/+/g for Referring Expression Comprehension, demonstrate that HCG-LVLM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art models such as Flamingo, BLIP-2, and MiniGPT-4. Our model achieves superior accuracy and significantly reduces hallucination, validating the effectiveness of its hierarchical design in enhancing fine-grained visual-language understanding and precise grounding capabilities.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly,

    Y . Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y . Cai, E. Sun, and Y . Zhang, “A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly,” CoRR, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models,

    Y . Zhou, X. Li, Q. Wang, and J. Shen, “Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024 . Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 2024, pp. 15 890–15 902

    2024

  3. [3]

    Weak to strong generalization for large language models with multi-capabilities,

    Y . Zhou, J. Shen, and Y . Cheng, “Weak to strong generalization for large language models with multi-capabilities,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Multimodal event transformer for image-guided story ending generation,

    Y . Zhou and G. Long, “Multimodal event transformer for image-guided story ending generation,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2023, pp. 3434–3444

    2023

  5. [5]

    A comprehensive survey of knowledge-based vision question answering systems: The lifecycle of knowledge in visual reasoning task,

    J. Deng, Z. Wu, H. Huo, and G. Xu, “A comprehensive survey of knowledge-based vision question answering systems: The lifecycle of knowledge in visual reasoning task,” CoRR, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Culture and hallucinations: overview and future directions,

    F. Larøi, T. M. Luhrmann, V . Bell, W. A. Christian Jr, S. Deshpande, C. Fernyhough, J. Jenkins, and A. Woods, “Culture and hallucinations: overview and future directions,” Schizophrenia bulletin, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Improving medical large vision- language models with abnormal-aware feedback,

    Y . Zhou, L. Song, and J. Shen, “Improving medical large vision- language models with abnormal-aware feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01377, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Thread of thought unraveling chaotic contexts,

    Y . Zhou, X. Geng, T. Shen, C. Tao, G. Long, J.-G. Lou, and J. Shen, “Thread of thought unraveling chaotic contexts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08734, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,

    J. Alayrac, J. Donahue, P. Luc, A. Miech, I. Barr, Y . Hasson, K. Lenc, A. Mensch, K. Millican, M. Reynolds, R. Ring, E. Rutherford, S. Cabi, T. Han, Z. Gong, S. Samangooei, M. Monteiro, J. L. Menick, S. Borgeaud, A. Brock, A. Nematzadeh, S. Sharifzadeh, M. Binkowski, R. Barre...

    2022

  2. [10]

    BLIP-2: bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. C. H. Hoi, “BLIP-2: bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA . PMLR, 2023, pp. 19 730–19 742

    2023

  3. [11]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models,

    D. Zhu, J. Chen, X. Shen, X. Li, and M. Elhoseiny, “Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    GQA: A new dataset for real- world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,

    D. A. Hudson and C. D. Manning, “GQA: A new dataset for real- world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2019, Long Beach, CA, USA, June 16-20, 2019. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2019,...

    2019

  5. [13]

    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 Computer Vision - ECCV 2022 - 17th European Con- ference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23-27, 2022, Proceedings, Part VIII . Springer, 2...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Revisiting referring expression comprehension evaluation in the era of large multimodal models,

    J. Chen, F. Wei, J. Zhao, S. Song, B. Wu, Z. Peng, S. G. Chan, and H. Zhang, “Revisiting referring expression comprehension evaluation in the era of large multimodal models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, CVPR Workshops 2025, Nash...

    2025

  7. [15]

    Debiasing vision-language models for vision tasks: a survey,

    B. Zhu and H. Zhang, “Debiasing vision-language models for vision tasks: a survey,” Frontiers Comput. Sci., p. 191321, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

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

    W. Dai, J. Li, D. Li, A. M. H. Tiong, J. Zhao, W. Wang, B. Li, P. Fung, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pr...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Towards multimodal in-context learning for vision and language models,

    S. Doveh, S. Perek, M. J. Mirza, W. Lin, A. Alfassy, A. Arbelle, S. Ullman, and L. Karlinsky, “Towards multimodal in-context learning for vision and language models,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2024 Workshops - Milan, Italy, September 29-October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XIX. ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    VILA: on pre-training for visual language models,

    J. Lin, H. Yin, W. Ping, P. Molchanov, M. Shoeybi, and S. Han, “VILA: on pre-training for visual language models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024 . IEEE, 2024, pp. 26 679–26 689

    2024

  11. [19]

    Mam: Modular multi-agent framework for multi-modal medical diagnosis via role-specialized collaboration,

    Y . Zhou, L. Song, and J. Shen, “Mam: Modular multi-agent framework for multi-modal medical diagnosis via role-specialized collaboration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19835 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Deciphering cross-modal alignment in large vision-language models with modality integration rate,

    Q. Huang, X. Dong, P. Zhang, Y . Zang, Y . Cao, J. Wang, D. Lin, W. Zhang, and N. Yu, “Deciphering cross-modal alignment in large vision-language models with modality integration rate,” CoRR, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Quantized prompt for efficient generalization of vision-language models,

    T. Hao, X. Ding, J. Feng, Y . Yang, H. Chen, and G. Ding, “Quantized prompt for efficient generalization of vision-language models,” in Com- puter Vision - ECCV 2024 - 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29-October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part XIX. Springer, 2024, ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    A closer look at the few-shot adaptation of large vision-language models,

    J. Silva-Rodr ´ıguez, S. Hajimiri, I. B. Ayed, and J. Dolz, “A closer look at the few-shot adaptation of large vision-language models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024 . IEEE, 2024, pp. 23 681–23 690

    2024

  15. [23]

    Analyzing fine-grained alignment and enhancing vision understanding in multimodal language models,

    J. Jiang, J. Zhou, B. Peng, X. Ning, and Z. Zhu, “Analyzing fine-grained alignment and enhancing vision understanding in multimodal language models,” CoRR, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Hivg: Hierarchical multimodal fine-grained modulation for visual grounding,

    L. Xiao, X. Yang, F. Peng, Y . Wang, and C. Xu, “Hivg: Hierarchical multimodal fine-grained modulation for visual grounding,” in Proceed- ings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM 2024, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 28 October 2024 - 1 November 2024 . ACM, 2...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Towards grounded visual spatial reasoning in multi-modal vision language models,

    N. Rajabi and J. Kosecka, “Towards grounded visual spatial reasoning in multi-modal vision language models,” CoRR, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Analyzing and boosting the power of fine-grained visual recognition for multi-modal large language models,

    H. He, G. Li, Z. Geng, J. Xu, and Y . Peng, “Analyzing and boosting the power of fine-grained visual recognition for multi-modal large language models,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025 . OpenRevi...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Insectmamba: State space model with adaptive composite features for insect recognition,

    Q. Wang, C. Wang, Z. Lai, and Y . Zhou, “Insectmamba: State space model with adaptive composite features for insect recognition,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  20. [28]

    Towards visual grounding: A survey,

    L. Xiao, X. Yang, X. Lan, Y . Wang, and C. Xu, “Towards visual grounding: A survey,” CoRR, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey,

    Z. Bai, P. Wang, T. Xiao, T. He, Z. Han, Z. Zhang, and M. Z. Shou, “Hallucination of multimodal large language models: A survey,” CoRR, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.