Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 20 references

The question-first paradox in vision-language models is a read-out failure, not a perception failure, and echoing the question fixes it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Repeating the question on both sides of the image (question echoing) closes the question-first accuracy gap in five open VLMs and beats standard single-pass orderings on several VQA benchmarks.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid empirical paper on VLM prompt ordering with a genuinely useful echo fix; the causal mechanism is plausible but the knockout doesn't fully separate 'reads image' from 'reads question through the image'. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15565 v1 pith:LC2QKOPZ submitted 2026-07-17 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGeess.IV

Ask Twice, Look Twice: Prompt Echoing Resolves the Question-First Paradox in Vision-Language Models

Rakshanda Hassan Abhinandan , John Galeotti , Deva Ramanan , Gautam Rajendrakumar Gare This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGeess.IV
keywords question-first paradoxprompt orderingvision-language modelslogit lensattention knockoutprompt echoingvisual steeringquestion read-out
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to explain and fix a counterintuitive failure: when a vision-language model is given the question before the image, it answers worse than when the question comes after the image, even though seeing the question first should guide where to look. Using internal probes, it argues that the question-first ordering genuinely steers the model's image representation toward question-relevant concepts, but the answer token barely attends to a question stranded behind hundreds of image tokens and instead commits early to an image-driven guess. The paper then shows that repeating the question on both sides of the image — 'question echoing' — preserves the steering while restoring the answer's access to the question, and repeating the image as well adds a whole-image read that causal attention otherwise loses. On five open VLMs and several benchmarks, these training-free prompt edits close the question-first gap and in many cases beat both single-pass orderings. The broader claim is that visual steering and answer read-out are distinct mechanisms with different positional needs, and prompt design can serve both.

Core claim

The central claim is that the question-first paradox is a positional read-out failure, not a perceptual one. Logit-lens and attention probes show that a question placed before the image reshapes image-patch representations toward question-relevant concepts (mean patch cosine drops from 0.91 to 0.86 relative to image-only, down to 0.62 in affected patches), but the answer token's attention to that question peaks at only 0.068 versus 0.148 when the question is last, and the model locks onto a wrong image-anchored token in 41% of disagreement pairs versus 2% under question-last. A causal attention knockout confirms the dissociation: severing the answer's direct edge to the question costs 0.056

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dissociation between two stages of VLM computation: perceptual steering (a question before the image shifts what image tokens encode) and answer read-out (the answer token reads tokens near it, chiefly the immediate image and an adjacent question). The paper identifies these as having different positional preferences and uses three tools: the logit lens to decode what image patches represent, layer-wise attention probes to measure what the answer position attends to, and a causal attention knockout (adding a pre-softmax −∞ bias to the answer-to-span edges) to test whether the read-out edge is used. The proposed prompts, STIT (question echoed before and after

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the logit-lens decodings and attention-weight magnitudes faithfully capture what the model steers and reads out; if those probes misread the internal computation, the mechanistic story weakens, and the causal knockout only severs the answer's direct edge, leaving relay-token paths intact.

What would settle it

Run the knockout test on a model whose decoder already attends bidirectionally within image blocks: the mechanism predicts the answer→question edge is causal only when the question is adjacent and image re-presentation adds nothing. If such a model still shows a question-first gap and a large echo gain, the positional read-out story fails. Alternatively, force the question-first answer position to attend to the stranded question via activation patching; if accuracy does not recover to question-last levels, the deficit is not purely read-out.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • VQA benchmarks should fix and report prompt ordering; the undocumented choice is worth up to 17.5 group-accuracy points on the models tested.
  • Agentic pipelines that state the task before attaching visual context are running the worst ordering; a one-line echoed question repairs them without retraining.
  • Echoing requires no fine-tuning, decoding changes, or architecture changes, so it can be dropped into existing deployed VLMs immediately.
  • The in-distribution effect suggests order robustness is learned during training; mixing section orders in instruction tuning may remove the paradox at the source.
  • The two-mechanism model turns prompt ordering from folklore into a measurable design variable, with predictions (e.g., the gap widens with image-token count) that can be tested on new models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same steering/read-out dissociation may explain 'lost in the middle' effects in text-only LLMs: a distant query can shape earlier representations while the answer token fails to consult it, which would make echo prompting a general remedy for long-context comprehension rather than a VLM-specific trick.
  • Because the question-first rewrite is diffuse (a near-uniform shift of the whole visual field rather than a spotlight on the queried object), the paper suggests that top-down steering in current VLMs is global; architectures with object-level attention or patch-specific gating might localize the benefit and need no echo.
  • A direct testable extension: on a VLM with bidirectional attention within image blocks, the paradox should vanish and image re-presentation should add nothing; if it still helps, the whole-image-read mechanism would need revising.
  • The echo prompts double the image token cost in SITIT; a training-time variant that teaches the model to perform a whole-image read in one pass could achieve the same gain without the extra tokens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a 'question-first paradox' in open VLMs: placing the question before the image (STI) consistently underperforms placing it after the image (SIT) across NaturalBench, POPE, Winoground, and an open-ended VQA split, on five models. It proposes a mechanistic explanation: the pre-image question genuinely steers visual patch representations (logit-lens and attention evidence), but the answer token under-attends to the distant question and instead commits to an image-anchored answer; a causal attention knockout (answer→question vs answer→image) is presented as evidence for this dissociation. From this diagnosis the paper derives training-free prompt edits—question echoing (STIT) and image echoing (SITIT)—which restore read-out and a whole-image view, and reports that they match or exceed single-pass orderings on several benchmarks. The empirical work includes paired significance tests, a resolution-sweep prediction, multiple control ablations, and code.

Significance. If the mechanistic interpretation is correct, this is a valuable case study in mechanistically grounded prompt design: it turns an ordering folklore into a measured, testable phenomenon and offers a simple fix with practical gains (up to ~19 points on Winoground group accuracy). Strengths include careful paired statistics, a falsifiable resolution-sweep prediction, random-permutation and system-prompt controls, and reproducibility. The main weakness is the causal interpretation of the knockout, which is confounded by question information relayed through image tokens. This concern does not threaten the accuracy results or the echo fix, but it is central to the paper's claimed dissociation between steering and read-out.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. D; Table 2] The causal knockout does not separate 'answer reads image' from 'answer reads question through the image.' Under STI, the image tokens appear after the question and, per Sec. G, their representations are question-dependent (cosine 0.825 between two questions; only ~5% of the effect vector is question-specific). Severing answer→image therefore removes not only image-anchored visual evidence but also the dominant relay by which question information can reach the answer. Sec. D acknowledges this relay logic for intervening text tokens but not for the image span itself, which is the very edge used to conclude 'the image edge carries the answer.' A concrete control: cut the image tokens' attention to the question (or encode the image in a separate pass with no question access) and re-run the STI answer→image knockout; if the effect disappears, the 'wasted steering' interpretation must be revi
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 4, Sec. 8] The 'wasted steering' framing is underdetermined. Attention magnitude (0.068 vs 0.148) is not a reliable measure of information use in transformers, and the knockout meant to establish causality is confounded as above. If the answer reads the question's effect on the image, the correct account is 'steering is read out, but the relayed, diffuse question-specific signal is less reliable than a direct adjacent copy'—consistent with Sec. G's finding that the question-specific perturbation is small and spatially diffuse. The paper should either test the causal contribution of the question-specific component of image states (e.g., compare a neutral pre-image prompt against the real question and measure accuracy, or ablate the question-specific directions in image hidden states) or soften the 'steering is never read out' claim. The accuracy results and the echo fix stand either way, but the cla
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'even there the remedy of Sec. 6 still helps' references the results section; the prompt-echo remedies are introduced in Sec. 5. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 7] The statement that echoing 'reproduces question-first's steering exactly' (cosine 1.000) is true by construction under the causal mask, since the pre-image tokens of STIT are identical to those of STI. It is a sanity check, not an independent empirical result. Please label it as such.
  3. [Table 5] The notation 'STI+img copies×2/×3' is cryptic. Please spell out that the image is repeated two or three times under STI, and clarify that 0.281/0.280 correspond to two/three copies.
  4. [Sec. F] The resolution sweep uses only 916 of the 1,900 NaturalBench groups (short side ≥ 784px). State this selection criterion in the main text and briefly discuss whether the excluded lower-resolution images might behave differently.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The 'whole post-question span' knockout result (−0.204) is reported in prose but not in Table 2. Consider adding it as a row for completeness.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central empirical ladder is independent; minor construction-identity is presented as probe confirmation.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 5.1 and Fig. 7 caption (Sec. E)]
    "echoing (STIT) is identical to STI (cosine 1.000) because the causal mask hides the post-image question from the patches. Steering comes only from a question that precedes the image, so echoing acts purely at read-out."

    The identity is fixed by the prompt definitions: STIT = System, Task, Image, Task and STI = System, Task, Image have the same tokens before the image, and the causal mask prevents the later Task from influencing image patches. Therefore the patch encodings must coincide (cosine 1.000) no matter what the mechanism is. Presenting this as a probe 'confirmation' that echoing preserves steering is a restatement of the construction, not an independent test; the load-bearing evidence for the fix is the empirical accuracy ladder (Tabs. 3-4), which is self-contained and not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's core claims are empirical measurements: question-first (STI) underperforms question-last (SIT) across five VLMs and three benchmarks, and echoing (STIT/SITIT) closes the gap. These are run on external benchmarks with a fixed input builder, no fitted parameters, and no target accuracy baked into the prompts; the resolution sweep, attention knockout, and negative controls (random-span knockout, padding, image duplication) are behavioral probes of the deployed models. The mechanistic dissociation is interpretative and has a real confound acknowledged in Sec. D: the answer-to-image knockout under STI may partly sever a question relay through the image tokens, since the image has already attended to the question. That is an underdetermination of the causal story, not a definitional circularity, and it does not affect the independent accuracy results. The only circular-adjacent move is the minor one listed above: the claim that STIT reproduces STI's steering 'exactly' is true by construction under the causal mask, so it is a sanity check rather than a confirmation. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem; the one author-overlap citation (NaturalBench) is an external benchmark. Overall circularity is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the central result; the accuracy ladder is a direct empirical measurement. The load-bearing assumptions are all methodological: that the logit lens and attention probes measure the proposed 'steering' and 'read-out' mechanisms, that the causal masks are read correctly, and that the five models/benchmarks are representative. The paper invokes no new entities or forces.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The logit lens projection (intermediate hidden states projected through the output embedding) faithfully reflects the semantic content the model will use, and per-patch cosine movement relative to an image-only baseline measures 'steering.'
    Invoked in Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 7 to conclude that question-first genuinely steers perception. The paper itself calls the logit lens approximate (Sec. 8 Limitations), so the interpretation of the cosine numbers is a domain assumption about the probe, not a proven fact.
  • domain assumption Attention weights of the answer position are a valid proxy for how much the answer 'reads' a token span.
    Used throughout Sec. 4.2 (read-out probe) to conclude the question is barely attended under STI. Transformer information flow also travels through residual streams and relay tokens, and the paper acknowledges this in Sec. D, so attention is an incomplete proxy that the paper treats as the primary mechanism.
  • domain assumption The five open VLM families (Qwen3-VL, Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, LLaVA-1.5, Gemma-3) and the four benchmarks (NaturalBench, POPE, Winoground, VQAv2) are representative of VLMs in general.
    Used in Secs. 3 and 6 to generalize the paradox and the fix. The paper honestly reports the Gemma-3 exception and Qwen2.5-VL under-recovery, which limits but does not refute the generalization.
  • domain assumption The causal decoder attention mask and the architecture details (Qwen causal, Gemma bidirectional within image block) are as the paper reads them from the model code.
    Used in Sec. C to predict the sign of the reversal effect (SITIT-r) and in Secs. 5.2 and 7 to explain why image re-presentation helps. The paper says it reads the masks from each model's code, but no code snippet is shown.
  • domain assumption Benchmark accuracy differences of the reported size are practically meaningful, not just statistically significant.
    The paper's claim that prompt ordering is an 'undocumented design choice worth up to 17.5 points' assumes that group-accuracy point differences on benchmarks translate into meaningful capability changes, which is a standard but not guaranteed assumption in VQA evaluation.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ask Twice, Look Twice: Prompt Echoing Resolves the Question-First Paradox in Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LC2QKOPZ

@misc{pith2026260715565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ask Twice, Look Twice: Prompt Echoing Resolves the Question-First Paradox in Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LC2QKOPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15565}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Where should the question go in a vision-language model (VLM) prompt: before the image or after it? Intuition says before: knowing what is asked should tell the model where to look. Yet across visual question answering benchmarks, question-first prompting consistently underperforms the image-first ordering recommended for frontier VLMs, a phenomenon we term the question-first paradox. We trace the paradox to a conflict between two stages of VLM computation. Logit-lens and attention probes show the intuition is half right: a question placed before the image genuinely steers perception, moving image patch representations toward question-relevant concepts. The failure lies downstream. Stranded behind hundreds of image tokens, the question is barely attended by the answer token, which instead commits to image-driven (often wrong) answers; a causal attention knockout confirms that the answer reads the question only when the question follows the image. The diagnosis yields a training-free fix: question echoing, restating the question on both sides of the image so that one copy steers perception while the other is read out at answer time. The same division of labor appears in a fifty-year-old finding on human ``adjunct questions'', where repeating a question before and after a passage aids comprehension more than either position alone. Echoing the image as well brings further gains, restoring the whole-image view a causal decoder otherwise loses. The paradox holds across five open VLMs, costing up to 17.5 group-accuracy points. Echoed prompts close it and surpass the best single-pass ordering on NaturalBench, POPE, Winoground, and open-ended VQAv2, by up to 19 Winoground group-accuracy points, with no training, fine-tuning, or architecture change. The paradox reveals a trade-off between steering perception and preserving question access; echoing resolves it through prompt design alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15565 by Deva Ramanan, Gautam Rajendrakumar Gare, John Galeotti, Rakshanda Hassan Abhinandan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Question placement, not question presence, decides the answer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Steering happens, yet is not read out. Logit lens on the image patches: each cell shows the vocabulary token that patch’s final-layer hidden state decodes to, coloured by that token’s probability on the viridis scale at right (dark blue 0 to yellow 1), overlaid on the image. The crimson box on the input marks the magnified region. For the question “Are the people standing in a large pool of water?” (ground… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The visual representation carries localized, readable object identity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-layer probe on NaturalBench disagreement pairs (STI-wrong, question-last￾right; 150 pairs), averaged over pairs. Left: answer-to-question attention; STI (red) barely attends to the far-away question, while SIT, STIT, and SITIT do. Middle: answer-to-image attention; STI over-attends to the image. Right: logit-lens P(correct answer token) by layer; the correct answer emerges only for the orderings that p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The attention reachability the mechanism turns on. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The position ladder, across models. NaturalBench group accuracy for the five VLMs. On the four models with a paradox, accuracy climbs from question-first (STI) to question-last (SIT) to echoing (STIT) to image re-presentation (SITIT); the exceptions are honest and visible (Qwen2.5-VL under-recovers at STIT; Gemma-3 has no STI-SIT gap but still gains from echoing; LLaVA-1.5 is single-image, so SITIT is n/a)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: maps the per-patch steering measurement summarized in Sec. 4.1: only a question that precedes the image moves the patch encodings, and echoing reproduces question-first’s steering exactly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The question-first gap scales with the number of image tokens. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same image, two questions. Per-layer cos between the image-token represen￾tations under q1 and q2. Image-first (blue) stays at 1.000 (the image never sees the question, so its encoding is question-invariant); question-first STI/STIT (red under green, identical curves) falls to 0.825 (the question rewrites the image). This is a scalar, not a spatial, effect (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Per-patch question-first perturbation of the image representation (layer 18). Rows: raw magnitude ∥eq∥ (top, dominated by outlier-dimension speckle), per￾dimension standardized (middle), and standardized with the 20 largest-variance di￾mensions dropped (bottom). Columns: q1 magnitude, q2 magnitude, and the signed difference ∥eq1 ∥ − ∥eq2 ∥ (smoothed; red = q1 rewrote more, blue = q2). After de￾noising, th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Per-patch logit-lens concept localization (layer 28). Top: the diverging map P(cat) − P(sport/TV) overlaid on the image (red: cat concept dominates; blue: sport/TV concept dominates), for the image-only baseline and question-first under each question; boxes are the object ROIs and the corner text is the inside/outside mass ratio. Bottom: raw logit-lens probability mass inside each object’s ROI across cond… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Logit-lens patch decodings (Qwen3-VL-8B, layer 28). Each callout gives the top vocabulary tokens that a patch decodes to under the logit lens. The patches de￾code to their objects: the television crowd to Barcelona/soccer/stadium, the players to jerseys, the lamp to cozy/lighting, the cat to asleep/striped, and the potted plant to ceramic/plant. The visual representation carries localized, human-readable … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Question-first steers the visual read-out; image-first cannot. Same image, two questions (q1 sport, q2 cat). Insets zoom the per-patch logit-lens concept probability on the cat and TV ROIs; bars give the question-effect magnitude |∆P| between the two questions on each ROI. Under STI the read-out differs between questions (|∆P| > 0, question-sensitive); under SIT the image cannot attend to the later questi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    April 2025 Edition Vertex AI Geminihttps://services.google.com/fh/files/ misc/2_vertex_ai_gemini_multimodal_prompting.pdf

    2025

  2. [2]

    Image prompt engineering techniques - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learn, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/foundry/openai/concepts/gpt- 4-v-prompt-engineering

  3. [3]

    com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens

    interpreting GPT: the logit lens — LessWrong (2020),https://www.lesswrong. com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens

    2020

  4. [4]

    1–23 (2 2025),https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2502.13923

    Bai, S., Chen, K., Liu, X., Wang, J., Ge, W., Song, S., Dang, K., Wang, P., Wang, S., Tang, J., Zhong, H., Zhu, Y., Yang, M., Li, Z., Wan, J., Wang, P., Ding, W., Fu, Z., Xu, Y., Ye, J., Zhang, X., Xie, T., Cheng, Z., Zhang, H., Yang, Z., Xu, H., Lin, J.: Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report pp. 1–23 (2 2025),https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2502.13923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Boyd, W.M.: Repeated questions in prose learning, vol. 64. American Psychological Association, 1 edn. (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    University of Chicago Press (1935)

    Buswell, G.T.: How People Look at Pictures: A Study of the Psychology of Per- ception in Art. University of Chicago Press (1935)

    1935

  7. [7]

    Review of Educational Research Summer56(2), 212–242 (1986),http://rer.aera.net

    Hamaker, C.: The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning. Review of Educational Research Summer56(2), 212–242 (1986),http://rer.aera.net

    1986

  8. [8]

    Han, F., Cui, H., Guo, L., Wang, Z., Lyu, Z.: READ BEFORE YOU THINK: MIT- IGATING LLM COMPREHENSION FAILURES WITH STEP-BY-STEP READ- ING

  9. [9]

    Ismithdeen, M.I., Khattak, M.U., Khan, S.: Promptception: How Sensitive Are Large Multimodal Models to Prompts? (9 2025),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509. 03986

    2025

  10. [10]

    Leviathan, Y., Kalman, M., Matias, Y., Research, G.: Prompt Repetition Improves Non-Reasoning LLMs (12 2025),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.14982

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems37(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.52202/079017-0542, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.14669

    Li, B., Lin, Z., Peng, W., de Dieu Nyandwi, J., Jiang, D., Ma, Z., Khanuja, S., Krishna, R., Neubig, G., Ramanan, D.: NaturalBench: Evaluating Vision- Language Models on Natural Adversarial Samples. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems37(10 2024).https://doi.org/10.52202/079017-0542, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.14669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    EMNLP 2023 - 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings pp

    Li, Y., Du, Y., Zhou, K., Wang, J., Zhao, W.X., Wen, J.R.: Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models. EMNLP 2023 - 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings pp. 292–305 (5 2023).https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.20,https://arxiv. org/pdf/2305.10355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Advances in Neural InformationProcessingSystems36(42023),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.08485

    Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y.J.: Visual Instruction Tuning. Advances in Neural InformationProcessingSystems36(42023),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.08485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics12, 157–173 (7 2023).https: //doi.org/10.1162/tacl{_}a{_}00638,https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03172

    Liu, N.F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., Liang, P.: Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics12, 157–173 (7 2023).https: //doi.org/10.1162/tacl{_}a{_}00638,https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    13th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025 pp

    Neo, C., Ong, L., Torr, P., Geva, M., Krueger, D., Barez, F.: Towards Interpret- ing Visual Information Processing in Vision-Language Models. 13th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025 pp. 25461–25478 (10 2024), https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.07149

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Shaier, S., Sanz-Guerrero, M., Von Der Wense, K.: Asking Again and Again: Ex- ploring LLM Robustness to Repeated Questions (12 2024),https://arxiv.org/ pdf/2412.07923 16 Abhinandan et. al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Tan, Z., Chu, X., Li, W., Mo, T.: Order Matters: Exploring Order Sensitivity in Multimodal Large Language Models (10 2024),https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410. 16983

    2024

  18. [18]

    Team, G., Kamath, A., Ferret, J., Pathak, S., Vieillard, N., Merhej, R., Perrin, S., Matejovicova, T., Ramé, A., Rivière, M., Rouillard, L., Mesnard, T., Cideron, G., Grill, J.b., Ramos, S., Yvinec, E., Casbon, M., Pot, E., Penchev, I., Liu, G., Visin, F., Kenealy, K., Beyer, L., Zhai, X., Tsitsulin, A., Busa-Fekete, R., Feng, A., Sachdeva, N., Coleman, B...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition2022-June, 5228–5238 (4 2022).https://doi

    Thrush, T., Jiang, R., Bartolo, M., Singh, A., Williams, A., Kiela, D., Ross, C.: Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compo- sitionality. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition2022-June, 5228–5238 (4 2022).https://doi. org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00517,https://arxiv.org...

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Answer the question using only Yes or No

    Xu, X., Tao, C., Shen, T., Xu, C., Xu, H., Long, G., Lou, J.G., Ma, S.: Re-Reading ImprovesReasoninginLargeLanguageModels.EMNLP2024-2024Conferenceon Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference pp.15549–15575(92023).https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.871, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.06275 Ask Twice, Look Twice: E...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.