Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Beyond Episodic Evaluation: Memory Architectural Bottlenecks in Sequential Embodied Question Answering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spatially grounded 3D memory lets an embodied agent accumulate knowledge across sequential questions, while mere persistence of maps, episodic snapshots, or latent states does not.

desk verdict Worth reading for the Sequential-EQA protocol and the clean negative result on naive memory reuse; the claim that 3D grounding is necessary doesn't follow from the experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21571 v1 pith:YTY7K5SF submitted 2026-07-23 cs.RO

Zikui Cai , Kaushal Janga , Tan Dat Dao , Seungjae Lee , Shivin Dass , Mingyo Seo , Kaiyu Yue , Mintong Kang
show 10 more authors
Nandhu Pillai Monte Hoover Aadi Palnitkar Ruchit Rawal Ruijie Zheng Bo Li Yuke Zhu Roberto Martín-Martín Tom Goldstein Furong Huang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords embodiedquestionansweringsequentialevaluationmemoryarchitecturespatial-semantic3Dscenerepresentationnavigationefficiencyvision-languagemodelslifelongrobot
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

This paper argues that in embodied question answering, turning memory 'on' across consecutive questions is not enough: the architecture of memory decides whether prior observations become reusable knowledge. To show this, the authors convert a standard episodic EQA benchmark into a sequential protocol that carries each agent's state across multiple questions in the same scene, with no retraining or adaptation. Across four representative systems, only an architecture that binds visual-semantic embeddings to metric 3D coordinates — 3D-Mem — converts persistence into simultaneous gains in accuracy (+33.3% memory advantage) and navigation efficiency (+53.3% step advantage). The other memory types — 2D occupancy maps, pose-tagged episodic snapshots, and implicit latent states in vision-language-action models — either plateau or degrade as history accumulates. The claim matters because real robots operate continuously, and the results point to spatial compositionality as the key design principle for lifelong embodied memory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the minimal-persistence adaptation protocol applied to four memory architectures. At each query boundary, the terminal memory state is carried forward, the question is replaced, and all network weights stay frozen, so any episodic-to-sequential difference is attributable to memory structure alone. The decisive structural difference is spatial anchoring: 3D-Mem stores visual-semantic embeddings at metric 3D coordinates, allowing observations from different viewpoints to fuse into a single coherent scene representation that later queries retrieve from directly. This is contrasted with 2D occupancy maps (traversability only), pose-tagged episodic snapshots (no glob

What would settle it

Run 3D-Mem's VLM and retrieval on a 2D top-down semantic map (or add global spatial alignment to MemoryEQA) under the Sequential-EQA protocol; if this variant matches 3D-Mem's +33.3% memory advantage and +53.3% step advantage, the necessity of metric 3D geometry is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the separation of memory persistence from knowledge accumulation. Under the Sequential-EQA protocol, agents that merely preserve state fail for three distinct reasons: occupancy maps remember where the robot has been but not what was there; episodic semantic libraries accumulate independent pose-tagged events that add retrieval noise; and end-to-end vision-language-action agents, trained on short episodic horizons, see the carried-over context as out-of-distribution input. Only 3D-Mem, which fuses observations into a persistent metric 3D reconstruction, shows sustained positive accuracy deltas across query positions and lower navigation cost. The paper's conclusion i

Load-bearing premise

The claim that spatial grounding is necessary rests on comparing one implemented system per memory architecture without an ablation that isolates 3D geometry from other differences such as VLM strength, retrieval heuristics, and exploration budget.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sequential evaluation decouples efficiency from accuracy: shorter path lengths with memory reuse can reflect premature stopping, not knowledge gain, so navigation cost alone is not a proxy for learning.
  • For agents that preserve only traversability or unaligned episodic snapshots, more memory capacity will not fix the bottleneck; the representation must be spatially structured.
  • Because 3D-Mem's accuracy advantage grows with query position, its value increases as sequences lengthen, suggesting diminishing returns for re-exploration in long-horizon deployments.
  • Real-robot experiments confirm the simulated trend: physical noise amplifies weak-memory failure, and spatially grounded memory improved accuracy from 20% to 40% in sequential trials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If metric 3D grounding is the active ingredient, then other geometry-binding representations—such as neural implicit fields or gaussian splats—should show similar sequential gains when paired with the same VLM, a testable prediction the paper does not run.
  • The lack of a controlled ablation (e.g., a 2D top-down semantic map with 3D-Mem's VLM and retrieval) leaves open the possibility that the advantage comes from retrieval quality or VLM strength rather than 3D geometry; that comparison would settle it.
  • The protocol freezes all weights, but real deployment would allow online adaptation; a follow-up would test whether lightweight adaptation rescues non-spatial memories, which would refine the 'necessity' claim into a 'default architecture' claim.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Sequential-EQA, a protocol that converts episodic EQA benchmarks into multi-query sequences within the same scene while carrying forward the agent's internal memory state. Four representative agents are compared: ExploreEQA (2D occupancy), MemoryEQA (dense episodic semantic library), 3D-Mem (metric 3D visual memory), and UniNavid (VLA latent memory). The authors report that only 3D-Mem yields a positive memory advantage and step advantage, and they conclude that structured 3D spatial memory is necessary to break the accuracy-efficiency bottleneck in sequential EQA. A real-robot deployment with five questions per trial is presented as validation.

Significance. The proposed evaluation protocol addresses a real gap: episodic resets ignore memory reuse during continuous operation. If the causal claim were established, the paper would be a useful diagnostic benchmark and would motivate spatially grounded memory architectures. Strengths include the explicit definition of metrics (SR, SR_mem, MA, PL, PL_mem, SA) in Section III, a per-query-index analysis in Figure 4, and the attempt to validate on a physical robot. However, the causal attribution to 3D grounding is not supported by the current experimental design, because the compared agents differ in many components besides memory structure; the headline numbers also lack significance testing. The contribution at this stage is a measurement protocol plus an interesting correlational observation, not a proof of necessity.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-B and Table II] Section IV-B's last sentence claims any performance difference is 'attributable solely to the structure of the inherited representation,' but the protocol fixes only weights and query boundaries; exploration policy, retrieval, memory capacity, and VLM are not controlled. Table II shows 3D-Mem's episodic SR=25.5 vs MemoryEQA's 61.0, and its sequential SR=58.8 vs MemoryEQA's 62.4. Thus the +33.3 MA and +53.3 SA are relative to an unusually weak episodic baseline. Without an ablation varying only the spatial representation (3D fused vs 2D top-down vs flat store) with VLM, exploration budget, and retrieval fixed, the paper does not establish 3D grounding as the cause or as necessary.
  2. [Section V-A and Table II; Section VI] Headline quantitative claims are reported without measures of uncertainty or significance tests. Table II gives single values; Fig. 3's caption mentions standard errors, but no error bars are visible and no intervals are given. In Section VI, each real-robot trial has five questions per condition, so 3D-Mem's 20% to 40% is 1/5 vs 2/5 correct and ExploreEQA's 33% to 26% is about 1.67/5 vs 1.3/5, with no repeated trials or variance. These samples cannot support the strong claim that spatially grounded memory is 'critical' for deployment. Provide confidence intervals, significance tests, or explicit per-trial data.
  3. [V-B, 'Structured Memory Supports Cross-query Accumulation'] The takeaway that structured memory becomes 'exponentially more useful over later queries' is not supported by any analysis in the paper. Figure 4 shows per-query-index means with signs of deltas, but no growth curve, exponential fit, or statistical comparison of slopes is provided. If this claim is retained, it needs a concrete operationalization and test; otherwise it should be removed or weakened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II Related Work] Typo: 'expierence' should be 'experience'.
  2. [II / overall] The method name is spelled 'UniNavid' in most of the paper but 'Uni-NaVid' in reference [15]; please standardize.
  3. [VI A] The heading 'V ariation' has an erroneous space.
  4. [Table II / Fig. 3] Table II says standard errors are shown in Fig. 3, but the figure appears to display aggregate bars without error bars or numeric standard errors; please clarify or add them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical benchmark comparison against external systems; the attribution gap is a confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation study rather than a derivation. Section III defines episodic vs. sequential evaluation and the metrics SR, SR_mem, MA, PL, PL_mem, and SA; these are conventional measurements, not quantities fitted to data and then 'predicted.' The central comparison in Table II uses four externally published agents (ExploreEQA, MemoryEQA, 3D-Mem, UniNavid) with model weights held fixed, and the cited systems are not authored by the present paper's team (references [14], [15], [16], [26]), so no self-citation chain carries the conclusion. The inference that 3D grounding is the architectural cause of 3D-Mem's gains is an empirical attribution based on comparing one system per memory class. That inference is threatened by confounds—notably 3D-Mem's low episodic baseline (25.5% SR), different VLM, exploration budget, and retrieval mechanism—so the statement in Section IV-B that 'any performance difference ... is attributable solely to the structure of the inherited representation' is overstrong. However, this is a controlled-comparison/ablation gap, not a circular reduction of an output to its inputs by construction. No equation in the paper equals another by definition in a way that manufactures the claimed result. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for its empirical claims, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

No numbers are fitted in this paper; the ledger records the domain assumptions the empirical conclusion depends on. The central risk is not free parameters but the representativeness of one method per architecture and the untested transfer assumptions of the persistence protocol.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The fixed-seed shuffled grouping of OpenEQA questions by scene is a meaningful decomposition of continuous robot operation.
    Section III-B and V-A: episodes are concatenated into ordered sequences; the paper assumes this ordering isolates memory reuse without changing environments or model weights.
  • ad hoc to paper Carrying the terminal memory state into the next query with frozen weights and no summarization fairly transfers each agent's memory.
    Section IV-B: the minimal persistence protocol is applied uniformly; the conclusion that differences are 'attributable solely to the structure of the inherited representation' depends on this transfer being equally valid for all four interfaces.
  • domain assumption All four methods can be fairly compared with the same frozen Qwen3-VL 8B foundation model and FP8 quantization.
    Section V-A: replacing each method's original VLM may change performance asymmetrically; the paper does not test with each method's native backbone.
  • domain assumption Real-robot trials of five questions per environment are sufficient to support generalization claims.
    Section VI-B: real-world results are reported with no variance; ExploreEQA's decrease is attributed to small test size, so external validity rests on a small sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Episodic Evaluation: Memory Architectural Bottlenecks in Sequential Embodied Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTY7K5SF

@misc{pith2026260721571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Episodic Evaluation: Memory Architectural Bottlenecks in Sequential Embodied Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTY7K5SF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21571}
}
read the original abstract

Embodied question answering (EQA) is traditionally evaluated under an episodic formulation, where agents solve each task independently and reset internal state between episodes. However, real-world robots operate continuously and must accumulate, retain, and selectively reuse information acquired from prior interactions. Despite this practical requirement, the architectural mechanisms needed to support sequential memory in EQA remain underexplored. In this work, we investigate how different memory architectures behave when EQA agents are evaluated sequentially, with multiple questions answered in the same scene while memory is carried forward across queries. We find that simply preserving existing memory is often insufficient. Agents that retain only traversability information, such as 2D occupancy maps, remember where the robot has explored but not the visual-semantic evidence needed for later questions. Agents trained on short-horizon episodic data face a different challenge: when exposed to continuous, multi-query histories, their inherited context suffers from severe temporal mismatch, rather than forming a reusable scene representation. To overcome this architectural bottleneck, we highlight the necessity of structured, spatially grounded memory: architectures that map persistent visual observations onto metric 3D geometry preserve visual-semantic evidence in a coherent scene representation. Extensive experiments in simulated environments reveal that this form of memory breaks the accuracy-efficiency tradeoff in sequential settings, simultaneously achieving higher answer accuracy and lower navigation costs. We further validate these findings on a real-world mobile robot, demonstrating that spatially grounded visual memory is critical for enabling continuous, intelligent operation in physical environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between Episodic and Sequential Evaluation paradigms. (a) In episodic evaluation, the agent’s memory is cleared after every task; for each new query (e.g., Q2), the agent must repeat the full exploration process as if the environment were novel. (b) Conversely, sequential evaluation allows the agent to maintain a persistent memory across successive tasks. While the initial task (Q1) requires full explorat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of questions per scene in the sequentialized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy–efficiency tradeoff under sequential memory reuse. From left to right: mean answer score (1–5; ↑), mean navigation time (seconds; ↓), mean navigation distance (meters; ↓), and a joint efficiency-vs-accuracy scatter plot. Light bars denote episodic (no memory) evaluation; dark bars denote sequential (with memory) evaluation; error bars indicate standard error. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 0 A. Mean Score… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-query-index accuracy and navigation time under sequential memory reuse. Panel A shows mean answer score (1–5; ↑, log scale); Panel B shows mean navigation time (seconds; ↓, log scale). The x-axis is query position 𝑖 within a scene sequence; each position averages o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-world deployment of the Unitree Go2. In both environments, UniNavid fails to leverage previous knowledge. In the indoor setting (left), the agent re-navigates to the chair for the second question as if the first encounter never occurred. Similarly, in the outdoor …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Em- bodied question answering,

    A. Das, S. Datta, G. Gkioxari, S. Lee, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Em- bodied question answering,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments,

    P. Anderson, Q. Wu, D. Teney, J. Bruce, M. Johnson, N. S¨ underhauf, I. Reid, S. Gould, and A. Van Den Hengel, “Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 3674–3683

    2018

  3. [3]

    Vision- and-dialog navigation,

    J. Thomason, M. Murray, M. Cakmak, and L. Zettlemoyer, “Vision- and-dialog navigation,” inConference on Robot Learning, 2020, pp. 394–406

    2020

  4. [4]

    Embodied question answering in photorealistic environments with point cloud perception,

    E. Wijmans, S. Datta, O. Maksymets, A. Das, G. Gkioxari, S. Lee, I. Essa, D. Parikh, and D. Batra, “Embodied question answering in photorealistic environments with point cloud perception,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Beyond the destination: A novel benchmark for exploration- aware embodied question answering,

    K. Jiang, Y. Liu, W. Chen, J. Luo, Z. Chen, L. Pan, G. Li, and L. Lin, “Beyond the destination: A novel benchmark for exploration- aware embodied question answering,” inIEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Openeqa: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models,

    A. Majumdar, A. Ajay, X. Zhang, P. Putta, S. Yenamandra, M. Henaff, S. Silwal, P. Mcvay, O. Maksymets, S. Arnaud, K. Yadav, Q. Li, B. Newman, M. Sharma, V. Berges, S. Zhang, P. Agrawal, Y. Bisk, D. Batra, M. Kalakrishnan, F. Meier, C. Paxton, A. Sax, and A. Rajeswaran, “Openeqa: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models,” inIEEE/CVF Conf...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation,

    M. Khanna, R. Ramrakhya, G. Chhablani, S. Yenamandra, T. Gervet, M. Chang, Z. Kira, D. S. Chaplot, D. Batra, and R. Mottaghi, “Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 16 373–16 383

    2024

  8. [8]

    Multi-target embodied question answering,

    L. Yu, X. Chen, G. Gkioxari, M. Bansal, T. L. Berg, and D. Batra, “Multi-target embodied question answering,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 6309–6318

    2019

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Just ask: An interactive learning framework for vision and language navigation,

    T.-C. Chi, M. Shen, M. Eric, S. Kim, and D. Hakkani-Tur, “Just ask: An interactive learning framework for vision and language navigation,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, 2020, pp. 2459– 2466

    2020

  2. [10]

    Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,

    R. Krishna, Y. Zhu, O. Groth, J. Johnson, K. Hata, J. Kravitz, S. Chen, Y. Kalantidis, L.-J. Li, D. A. Shamma, M. S. Bernstein, and L. Fei-Fei, “Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations,”International Journal of Computer Vision, ...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y. Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox, “Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 10 740– 10 749

    2020

  4. [12]

    A frontier-based approach for autonomous ex- ploration,

    B. Yamauchi, “A frontier-based approach for autonomous ex- ploration,” inProceedings 1997 IEEE International Sympo- sium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation CIRA ’97.’Towards New Computational Principles for Robotics and Automation’, IEEE, 1997, pp. 146–151

    1997

  5. [13]

    Robotic mapping: A survey,

    S. Thrun et al., “Robotic mapping: A survey,”Exploring artificial intelligence in the new millennium, vol. 1, no. 1-35, p. 1, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Explore until confident: Efficient exploration for embodied question answering,

    A. Z. Ren, J. Clark, A. Dixit, M. Itkina, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh, “Explore until confident: Efficient exploration for embodied question answering,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, Jul. 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Uni-NaVid: A video-based vision-language- action model for unifying embodied navigation tasks,

    J. Zhang, K. Wang, S. Wang, M. Li, H. Liu, S. Wei, Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Uni-NaVid: A video-based vision-language- action model for unifying embodied navigation tasks,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Jun. 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    3d- mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning,

    Y. Yang, H. Yang, J. Zhou, P. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Du, and C. Gan, “3d- mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025, pp. 17 294–17 303

    2025

  9. [17]

    Iqa: Visual question answering in interactive environ- ments,

    D. Gordon, A. Kembhavi, M. Rastegari, J. Redmon, D. Fox, and A. Farhadi, “Iqa: Visual question answering in interactive environ- ments,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Industryeqa: Pushing the frontiers of embodied question answering in industrial scenarios,

    Y. Li, Y. Chen, A. Dao, L. Li, Z. Cai, Z. Tan, T. Chen, and Y. Kong, “Industryeqa: Pushing the frontiers of embodied question answering in industrial scenarios,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Partnr: A benchmark for planning and reasoning in embodied multi-agent tasks,

    M. Chang, G. Chhablani, A. Clegg, M. D. Cote, R. Desai, M. Hlavac, V. Karashchuk, J. Krantz, R. Mottaghi, P. Parashar, S. Patki, I. Prasad, X. Puig, A. Rai, R. Ramrakhya, D. Tran, J. Truong, J. M. Turner, E. Undersander, and T.-Y. Yang, “Partnr: A benchmark for planning and re...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Enter the mind palace: Reasoning and planning for long-term active embodied question answering,

    M. F. Ginting, D.-K. Kim, X. Meng, A. M. Reinke, B. J. Krishna, N. Kayhani, O. Peltzer, D. Fan, A. Shaban, S.-K. Kim, M. Kochenderfer, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and S. Omidshafiei, “Enter the mind palace: Reasoning and planning for long-term active embodied question answering,” in...

    2025

  13. [21]

    CLIP-Fields: Weakly supervised semantic fields for robotic memory,

    N. M. M. Shafiullah, C. Paxton, L. Pinto, S. Chintala, and A. Szlam, “CLIP-Fields: Weakly supervised semantic fields for robotic memory,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Daegu, Republic of Korea, Jul. 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    A comprehensive survey of scene graphs: Generation and application,

    X. Chang, P. Ren, P. Xu, Z. Li, X. Chen, and A. Hauptmann, “A comprehensive survey of scene graphs: Generation and application,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cognitive mapping and planning for visual navigation,

    S. Gupta, J. Davidson, S. Levine, R. Sukthankar, and J. Malik, “Cognitive mapping and planning for visual navigation,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 2616–2625

    2017

  16. [24]

    Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic explo- ration,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. P. Gandhi, A. Gupta, and R. R. Salakhutdi- nov, “Object goal navigation using goal-oriented semantic explo- ration,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 4247–4258, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,

    N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2024, pp. 42– 48

    2024

  18. [26]

    Memory-centric embodied question answer,

    M. Zhai, Z. Gao, Y. Wu, and Y. Jia, “Memory-centric embodied question answer,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13948, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Qwen3-VL technical report,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen3-VL technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.