Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

ReGraph: Learning to Generate Recipe Graphs from Food Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fluent recipe text can hide an almost complete absence of recoverable cooking procedure; the paper's ReGraph dataset makes the gap measurable and its two-stage Recipe Graph Learning narrows it.

desk verdict Solid dataset and benchmark construction; the training gains are real but the evaluation reporting needs validation-split discipline and variance estimates before the effect sizes can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06917 v1 pith:OMVHZY4A submitted 2026-08-07 cs.AI

Guoshan Liu , Bin Zhu , Pengkun Jiao , Jingjing Chen , Chong-Wah Ngo , Yu-Gang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords recipegraphfoodimageproceduralstructureingredientstatelargemultimodalmodelschain-of-thoughtreinforcementfine-tuninggeneration
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 tries to establish that generating a recipe from a food image is not the same as understanding the cooking procedure behind it: free-form recipe text can be fluent and lexically close to a gold recipe while encoding almost none of the procedural structure that a graph representation exposes. It introduces ReGraph, a 10,000-recipe dataset that turns cooking instructions into explicit graphs of ingredients, actions, and tools connected by typed relations, with ingredient states carried as entity attributes. On top of it, the paper proposes Recipe Graph Learning (RGL), a two-stage framework that supervises a multimodal model to emit a reasoning trace followed by a graph, then refines the graph with a reward for entity and relation recovery relative to the supervised baseline. Across two 8-billion-parameter backbones, RGL consistently improves entity and relation generation, and the analysis shows that capturing fine-grained ingredient states remains the most difficult dimension.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is ReGraph, a graph schema that makes cooking procedure explicit: three entity types (ingredient, action, tool) with ingredient-state attributes, and three typed relations—targ linking a manipulated entity to the action applied to it, dest linking an action to its destination or output entity, and followed by encoding procedural ordering. The carrier of the argument is RGL, a two-stage training loop that first supervises generation of a Recipe Reasoning Chain-of-Thought trace together with the graph, then applies GRPO with a Relative Improvement Reward that scores each candidate's entity and relation F1 relative to the SFT baseline, plus a lightweight format reward. Evaluation uses canonical vocabularies derived from the 8,500 training recipes with exact entity and relation matching, so scores measure alignment with one annotated reference workflow rather than LLM judgment.

What would settle it

A human study in which independent cooks convert the same food image into their own workflow graphs without seeing the ReGraph reference: if RGL's output matches cross-annotator consensus better than it matches the single reference, yet scores lower on the canonical protocol, the metric rewards one annotation style rather than procedural validity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that lexical quality and procedural content come apart in recipe generation: under ReGraph's deterministic canonical matching protocol, existing image-to-recipe models score high on text metrics, yet the procedural structure recoverable from their outputs is near zero, with the best in-context baseline reaching only 3.62% relation F1. Training on ReGraph changes this: RGL's supervised stage already overtakes all in-context baselines, and its reinforcement stage further lifts entity F1 to 30.93% and relation F1 to 8.62% on Qwen3-VL-8B, with consistent gains on InternVL3-8B. The paper also establishes that fine-grained ingredient-state capture is the hardest dimension: state-aware ingredient matching remains at 21.40% F1 after reinforcement, substantially below the 34.66% name-only matching, and the graph formalization itself—not just visual inference—is a major source of difficulty, since even feeding the full ground-truth recipe yields only 18.63% relation F1.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the premise that the single ReGraph reference annotation per recipe, together with the canonical matching protocol, is a faithful measure of procedural correctness rather than a measure of conformity to one LLM-driven annotation style.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Text-based evaluation of recipe generation overstates model quality: high SacreBLEU and ROUGE-L scores can coexist with near-zero recoverable entity and relation structure.
  • Directly training models to output structured graphs, rather than converting free-form text afterwards, is the more effective route to reference-aligned procedure recovery.
  • Reinforcement fine-tuning with a baseline-relative reward improves relational structure, with the largest gains on the followed by ordering relations.
  • Ingredient-state tracking is the binding constraint for image-to-recipe systems; identifying ingredients is far easier than knowing what happens to them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-reference protocol likely under-credits alternative but equally valid workflows; a multi-reference or procedural-equivalence evaluation would change absolute scores, though it would probably preserve the relative ordering of methods.
  • The same graph-supervision recipe may transfer to other procedural domains, such as assembling furniture, laboratory protocols, or repair steps, where free-form instructions hide structure in the same way.
  • Because the canonical vocabularies and the reference graphs are produced by LLMs and then human-normalized, the metric inherits their annotation granularity; re-deriving the vocabularies from different seeds or different LLMs would test how much of the measured gap is annotation-style dependent.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ReGraph, a dataset of 10,000 recipes from Recipe1M annotated with structured graphs over ingredients, actions, and tools, using targ, dest, and followed-by relations, entity attributes for ingredient states, and auxiliary Recipe Reasoning Chain-of-Thought traces. It then proposes Recipe Graph Learning (RGL), a two-stage framework: RGL-SFT supervises joint generation of RR-CoT and graph structure, and RGL-RFT applies GRPO with a Relative Improvement Reward that measures entity and relation F1 relative to the SFT model's own baseline, plus a lightweight format reward. Experiments on Qwen3-VL-8B and InternVL3-8B report consistent entity and relation F1 gains after RFT, and a comparison with existing recipe-generation methods shows that high text-generation scores do not translate into reference-aligned procedural structure. The paper includes ablations of the reward design, CoT supervision, scaling factor, and reward weights, along with qualitative and oracle analyses. Section 6 acknowledges the single-reference nature of the evaluation and the underdetermination of the task.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by shifting recipe evaluation from lexical text metrics to explicit procedural structure, and the released dataset and deterministic matching protocol would give the community a reproducible benchmark. The two-stage RGL design is sensible: the RR-CoT auxiliary supervision is a reasonable way to inject procedural decomposition, and the RIR is a principled baseline-relative reward that is not circular, since the baseline is the model's own training-set F1 and all models are scored against a fixed reference. The oracle analysis in Section 5.8 is informative, cleanly separating image-to-procedure inference from text-to-graph formalization. The main weakness is that the headline procedural claims are only as strong as the single-reference annotation protocol, and the hyperparameter choices in Section 5.5 appear to be selected on the test set; both issues need to be addressed before the central comparison can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.5, Tables 15 and 16] The scaling-factor and reward-weight ablations report test-set F1 for each configuration, and no validation split or cross-validation procedure is described anywhere in Section 5.1. Since s=2 and alpha=beta'=1 are then used in the main Table 8 results, the main RFT numbers are selected on the evaluation set, which inflates the reported gains and makes the comparison against baselines optimistic. Please introduce a held-out validation split for hyperparameter selection, or explicitly document that the reported test numbers are the result of test-set sweeping and provide corrected numbers under a valid selection procedure.
  2. [Section 6 and Section 5.2] The primary metric is exact-match alignment to a single reference graph produced by Claude-Sonnet 4.5, normalized by GPT-4o, and human-corrected only on the 1,500-recipe test split. Section 6 admits that 'a procedurally reasonable graph may still be penalized when it differs from this reference,' and Section 5.7 confirms that a plausible simplification such as combine-stir instead of stir-mix-stir is penalized. The semantic relaxation in Table 10 only widens lexical equivalence within the same reference structure; it does not allow alternative decompositions or orderings. Consequently, the absolute F1 numbers measure conformity to one annotation style rather than procedural correctness. The relative claim that RGL improves under this protocol is defensible, but the Abstract's statement that the graph representation assesses 'whether model outputs encode process-level knowledge' goes beyond what the protocol supports. A multi-reference evaluation, a procedural-equivalence metric, or a reframing of the claims as alignment with the ReGraph reference is needed.
  3. [Section 5.3, Tables 8-13] All experimental tables report point estimates from what appear to be single training runs, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since RGL-RFT involves stochastic GRPO sampling and LoRA fine-tuning, the reported differences, particularly the relation F1 gap between RIR and raw F1 (8.62 vs. 7.23 in Table 13) and the small in-context differences in Table 8, may be within run-to-run noise. The paper's central claim of consistent improvement would be considerably more secure with variance estimates across multiple seeds or paired tests on the test instances.
  4. [Section 3.3, Table 4, and Section 4.2.1] The RFT reward is computed against training annotations whose relation correctness is audited at only 89.5% (Table 4), and the canonical vocabularies in Section 5.2 are derived from the same training annotations. This creates a risk that RIR reinforces annotation-specific errors and that the evaluation vocabulary inherits the training pipeline's normalization choices. The paper does not analyze how training-label noise affects the RFT gains or whether the fixed frequency threshold (canonical labels below aggregate frequency 10 are removed) systematically penalizes rare but valid test ingredients. Please discuss these effects or provide an analysis quantifying their impact on the reported scores.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 12] The RGL rows report no SacreBLEU or ROUGE-L scores; since the text-versus-structure comparison is central, clarify whether RGL can produce free-form text at all or provide its text metrics for a fair comparison.
  2. [Figure 3 and Section 4.2] The notation in Equation (5) uses beta' while the text refers to beta-prime; please define the symbol consistently in one place.
  3. [Figure 5] The figure uses sub-labels (a) and (b) while the text refers to Case (1) and Case (2); aligning the labels would make the error analysis easier to follow.
  4. [Section 3.3] The revision-type percentages in Table 2 are described as non-mutually exclusive, but the table does not state this in its caption; adding that note would prevent misreading the column sum.
  5. [Section 5.2] The description of the semantic verifier is clear, but it would help to state explicitly that the verifier is asked only to accept residual name-level equivalence and cannot override ingredient-state distinctions; this is currently buried in the prompt-summary sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison is a fixed-reference benchmark, and the RIR reward baseline is a monotone reward shaper rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. RGL-SFT is trained with standard negative log-likelihood on ReGraph, and RGL-RFT uses GRPO with a reward composed of entity/relation F1 against the fixed training annotations plus a deterministic format check. The RIR baseline b_entity/b_relation is computed from the converged SFT model's training-set F1 (Section 4.2.1) and enters only as a monotone transformation of F1 (Eq. 4); because GRPO normalizes rewards within each sampled group, the baseline cannot by itself force a test-set gain, and the claimed improvements are verified against a fixed, human-corrected 1,500-recipe test set under a deterministic canonical matching protocol (Sections 3.3 and 5.2, Table 3). The canonical vocabularies are constructed from the 8,500 training samples and frozen before test evaluation, which is standard benchmark practice and the opposite of test-set leakage. The headline comparison with prior recipe-generation methods (Table 12) measures how consistently free-form text can be formalized into the ReGraph schema and explicitly disclaims a unique hidden process: 'This does not assume a unique hidden process; it measures how consistently free-form instructions can be formalized into reference-aligned entities and relations.' The self-citations in Section 2 (FoodLMM, RoDE, SDRA, SGRG) are related-work descriptions and are not load-bearing for ReGraph's construction, training, or evaluation. The acknowledged limitation that 'a procedurally reasonable graph may still be penalized when it differs from this reference' (Section 6) is a validity caveat about single-reference matching, not a circular derivation: the reference is fixed and external to the trained models. No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to its own input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is an annotation protocol and benchmark. The ledger shows that the main external inputs are LLM-generated labels, a hand-designed schema, and canonicalization thresholds. The framework introduces no new physical entities; intermediate ingredient states are representational choices, not newly postulated things.

free parameters (5)
  • RIR scaling factor s = 2
    Selected by sweeping s in {1, 2, 3} (Table 15) with no held-out validation split described, so the best value appears to be chosen by test-set performance.
  • RIR penalty reduction factor lambda = 0.5
    Fixed hyperparameter in Eq. 4; no ablation or independent justification is given for this value.
  • Reward weights alpha, beta-prime, gamma = alpha=1, beta'=1, gamma=0.1
    Reward weights are selected via a small ablation (Table 16) and by hand for gamma; the headline RFT results depend on this configuration.
  • Canonical vocabulary frequency threshold = 10
    Canonical action and tool labels with aggregate training frequency below 10 are removed (Section 5.2). This threshold shapes the evaluation vocabulary and therefore the reported F1 scores.
  • GRPO sampling parameters = G=8, top-p=0.85, temperature=1.0
    These standard sampling hyperparameters affect policy optimization and candidate diversity, though they are not the main fitted quantities in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Recipe1M recipes paired with images are a valid source for visual recipe-graph supervision.
    Sampling 10,000 Recipe1M recipes (Section 3.1) assumes the text-image pairing supports image-to-graph learning, even though many procedural steps are not visually observable.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated graph annotations, with human correction only for the test split, are reliable enough as ground truth.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3 describe Claude-Sonnet 4.5 generation, GPT-4o normalization, and human validation limited to the test split. The training-split audit reports 89.5% relation correctness, so noisy labels are used for training.
  • domain assumption The ReGraph schema with ingredient, action, and tool entities plus targ, dest, and followed-by relations captures cooking procedural knowledge.
    The entire benchmark assumes that three entity types, three relation types, and attribute-based states are the right abstraction for cooking procedures (Section 3.2, Figure 1).
  • domain assumption Deterministic canonical matching is a valid proxy for procedural correctness.
    Section 5.2 defines exact name and attribute matching as the primary metric. The paper acknowledges in Section 6 that a procedurally reasonable graph may be penalized when it differs from a single reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReGraph: Learning to Generate Recipe Graphs from Food Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMVHZY4A

@misc{pith2026260806917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReGraph: Learning to Generate Recipe Graphs from Food Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMVHZY4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06917}
}
read the original abstract

Recent Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have achieved impressive performance in recipe generation from food images.However, cooking is a structured transformation process in which ingredients undergo state changes through ordered actions,while free-form recipe language leaves the corresponding entities, intermediate states, and dependencies largely implicit and entangled.A graph representation makes this procedural knowledge explicit and compositional, providing a structured basis for assessing whether model outputs encode process-level knowledge rather than merely presenting plausible textual descriptions. To address this limitation, we present ReGraph, a large-scale recipe graph dataset that represents ingredients, cooking actions, and tools as entities, uses entity attributes to describe ingredient state changes, and employs typed relations to encode manipulation targets, destinations, and procedural ordering. ReGraph further incorporates explicit Recipe Reasoning Chain-of-Thought (RR-CoT) traces, providing auxiliary supervision for procedural decomposition and structured graph generation. Building on ReGraph, we propose Recipe Graph Learning (RGL), a two-stage framework that enables LMMs to generate a plausible fine-grained cooking workflow from a food image in the form of a structured recipe graph. Under a deterministic, schema-aware matching protocol, our experiments reveal a substantial gap between text-generation quality and recoverable procedural structure: recipes produced by existing approaches achieve competitive text-generation scores yet yield limited reference-aligned entity and relation structure under the ReGraph schema. In contrast, across two representative LMM backbones, RGL consistently improves the generation of cooking entities and procedural relations, while our analysis further shows that fine-grained ingredient-state capture remains the most challenging dimension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sample visualization showing original recipe instructions alongside a corresponding partial entry from ReGraph. Nodes represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Category distribution of the ReGraph dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our two-stage Recipe Graph Learning (RGL) framework. RGL-SFT first teaches the model to generate structured graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of recipe graph generation. Qwen3-VL-RFT produces more accurate entities, relations, and procedural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative failure cases of recipe graph generation, illustrating visually unobservable procedural information, commonsense-driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human-verified ReGraph annotation for the “cheese stuffed shells” recipe. The graph explicitly represents ingredient-state transforma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anthropic. 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5. Online. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-sonnet-4-5

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Jingjing Chen and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2016. Deep-based ingredient recognition for cooking recipe retrieval. InProceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Jingjing Chen, Bin Zhu, Chong-Wah Ngo, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2020. A study of multi-task and region-wise deep learning for food ingredient recognition.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing30 (2020), 1514–1526

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Ting Chen et al. 2022. Pix2Seq: A Language Modeling Framework for Object Detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Google DeepMind. 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Model Card. https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/gemini-3-1-pro/

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Yinxuan Gui, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2025. Efficient Prompt Tuning for Hierarchical Ingredient Recognition. InIEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Yinxuan Gui, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong Wah Ngo, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. Navigating weight prediction with diet diary. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 127–136

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Lee, Ke Shu, Palakorn Achananuparp, Philips Kokoh Prasetyo, Yue Liu, Ee-Peng Lim, and Lav R Varshney

    Helena H. Lee, Ke Shu, Palakorn Achananuparp, Philips Kokoh Prasetyo, Yue Liu, Ee-Peng Lim, and Lav R Varshney. 2020. RecipeGPT: Generative pre-training based cooking recipe generation and evaluation system. InCompanion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020. 181–184

    2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Steven Haussmann, Oshani Seneviratne, et al. 2019. FoodKG: a semantics-driven knowledge graph for food recommendation. InInternational Semantic Web Conference

    2019

  2. [10]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR1, 2 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card

    2024

  4. [12]

    Pengkun Jiao, Xinlan Wu, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2026. Rode: Linear rectified mixture of diverse experts for food large multi-modal models. InProceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval. 2457–2466

    2026

  5. [13]

    Shima Khoshraftar and Aijun An. 2024. A survey on graph representation learning methods.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology15, 1 (2024), 1–55

    2024

  6. [14]

    Rongjie Li, Songyang Zhang, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen, and Xuming He. 2024. From pixels to graphs: Open-vocabulary scene graph generation with vision-language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2024

  7. [15]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. InText summarization branches out. 74–81

    2004

  8. [16]

    Guoshan Liu, Yang Jiao, Jingjing Chen, Bin Zhu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2024. From canteen food to daily meals: Generalizing food recognition to more practical scenarios.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia(2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Guoshan Liu, Hailong Yin, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, , et al. 2025. Retrieval augmented recipe generation. InIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    2025

  10. [18]

    Guoshan Liu, Bin Zhu, Yian Li, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2026. Enhancing Action and Ingredient Modeling for Semantically Grounded Recipe Generation. InICASSP 2026-2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEE...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Weiqing Min, Shuqiang Jiang, Linhu Liu, Yong Rui, and Ramesh Jain. 2019. A survey on food computing.Acm Computing Surveys(2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Shinsuke Mori, Hirokuni Maeta, Yoko Yamakata, and Tetsuro Sasada. 2014. Flow Graph Corpus from Recipe Texts.. InLREC

    2014

  13. [21]

    Taichi Nishimura, Suzushi Tomori, et al. 2020. Visual grounding annotation of recipe flow graph. InProceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

    2020

  14. [22]

    OpenAI. 2025. Introducing GPT-5.2. https://openai.com/zh-Hant/index/introducing-gpt-5-2/

    2025

  15. [23]

    Dim P Papadopoulos, Enrique Mora, Nadiia Chepurko, Kuan Wei Huang, Ferda Ofli, and Antonio Torralba. 2022. Learning program representations for food images and cooking recipes. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 16559–16569

    2022

  16. [24]

    Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. InProceedings of the third conference on machine translation: Research papers. 186–191. Manuscript submitted to ACM 18 Liu et al

    2018

  17. [25]

    Huiyan Qi, Bin Zhu, Chong-Wah Ngo, Jingjing Chen, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2025. Advancing food nutrition estimation via visual-ingredient feature fusion. In Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval. 1091–1099

    2025

  18. [26]

    Josselin S Roberts, Tony Lee, Chi H Wong, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yifan Mai, and Percy Liang. 2024. Image2struct: Benchmarking structure extraction for vision-language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 115058–115097

    2024

  19. [27]

    Amaia Salvador, Michal Drozdzal, Xavier Giró-i Nieto, and Adriana Romero. 2019. Inverse cooking: Recipe generation from food images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10453–10462

    2019

  20. [28]

    Amaia Salvador, Nicholas Hynes, et al. 2017. Learning cross-modal embeddings for cooking recipes and food images. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    2017

  21. [29]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, et al. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv:2402.03300

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Keisuke Shirai, Atsushi Hashimoto, et al. 2022. Visual Recipe Flow: A Dataset for Learning Visual State Changes of Objects with Recipe Flows. InInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics

    2022

  23. [31]

    Fangzhou Song, Bin Zhu, Yanbin Hao, and Shuo Wang. 2024. Enhancing recipe retrieval with foundation models: A data augmentation perspective. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 111–127

    2024

  24. [32]

    Muntasir Wahed, Xiaona Zhou, Tianjiao Yu, and Ismini Lourentzou. 2024. Fine-grained alignment for cross-modal recipe retrieval. InIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    2024

  25. [33]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al . 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  26. [34]

    Xinlan Wu, Bin Zhu, Feng Han, Pengkun Jiao, and Jingjing Chen. 2026. Dual-LoRA and Quality-Enhanced Pseudo Replay for Multimodal Continual Food Learning. InInternational Conference on Multimedia Modeling. Springer, 173–187

    2026

  27. [35]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dongil Yang, Minjin Kim, et al. 2025. Llm meets scene graph: Can large language models understand and generate scene graphs? a benchmark and empirical study. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2025

  29. [37]

    Jinghan Yang, Zhenbo Xu, Dehua Ma, Liu Liu, Fei Liu, Gong Huang, and Zhaofeng He. 2025. RecipeRAG: Advancing Recipe Generation with Reinforced Retrieval Augmented Generation. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 5060–5069

    2025

  30. [38]

    Yuehao Yin, Huiyan Qi, Bin Zhu, Jingjing Chen, Yu-Gang Jiang, and Chong-Wah Ngo. 2025. Foodlmm: A versatile food assistant using large multi-modal model.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia(2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Ruoxuan Zhang, Bin Wen, Hongxia Xie, Yi Yao, Songhan Zuo, Jian-Yu Jiang-Lin, Hong-Han Shuai, and Wen-Huang Cheng. 2025. CookAnything: A Framework for Flexible and Consistent Multi-Step Recipe Image Generation. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedi...

    2025

  32. [40]

    Yuze Zhao, Jintao Huang, et al. 2025. Swift: a scalable lightweight infrastructure for fine-tuning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39

    2025

  33. [41]

    Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, et al . 2025. InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models. arXiv:2504.10479 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10479

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    cheese stuffed shells

    Yanqiao Zhu, Weizhi Xu, Jinghao Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2021. Deep graph structure learning for robust representations: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.0303614, 1-1 (2021), 3. Manuscript submitted to ACM ReGraph: Learning to Generate Recipe Graphs from Fo...

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    boil shells according to package directions

    "boil shells according to package directions"

  36. [44]

    remove from pot with tongs to avoid tearing

    "remove from pot with tongs to avoid tearing"

  37. [45]

    allow to cool on a sheet of wax paper

    "allow to cool on a sheet of wax paper"

  38. [46]

    combine eggs, cheeses, and seasonings in bowl

    "combine eggs, cheeses, and seasonings in bowl"

  39. [47]

    spoon about 3 tbls. cheese mixture into each cooked shell

    "spoon about 3 tbls. cheese mixture into each cooked shell"

  40. [48]

    spread 2 tbls of the spaghetti sauce in bottom of 13

    "spread 2 tbls of the spaghetti sauce in bottom of 13"x9" baking dish"

  41. [49]

    arrange shells in dish over sauce

    "arrange shells in dish over sauce"

  42. [50]

    pour remaining sauce over stuffed shells

    "pour remaining sauce over stuffed shells"

  43. [51]

    sprinkle cheese over sauce

    "sprinkle cheese over sauce"

  44. [52]

    bake in 350f degrees oven for 30 minutes

    "bake in 350f degrees oven for 30 minutes" b) Dependency List: - Step 1 -> Step 2 (must boil shells before removing them) - Step 2 -> Step 3 (must remove shells before they can cool) - Step 3 -> Step 5 (needs cooled shells to stuff) - Step 4 -> Step 5 (needs cheese mixture to ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.