REVIEW 1 cited by
BBA: Bi-Modal Behavioral Alignment for Reasoning with Large Vision-Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Multimodal reasoning stands as a pivotal capability for large vision-language models (LVLMs). The integration with Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), offering precise visual representations, equips these models with the opportunity to execute more accurate reasoning in complex and professional domains. However, the vanilla Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting method faces challenges in effectively leveraging the unique strengths of visual and DSL representations, primarily due to their differing reasoning mechanisms. Additionally, it often falls short in addressing critical steps in multi-step reasoning tasks. To mitigate these challenges, we introduce the \underline{B}i-Modal \underline{B}ehavioral \underline{A}lignment (BBA) prompting method, designed to maximize the potential of DSL in augmenting complex multi-modal reasoning tasks. This method initiates by guiding LVLMs to create separate reasoning chains for visual and DSL representations. Subsequently, it aligns these chains by addressing any inconsistencies, thus achieving a cohesive integration of behaviors from different modalities. Our experiments demonstrate that BBA substantially improves the performance of GPT-4V(ision) on geometry problem solving ($28.34\% \to 34.22\%$), chess positional advantage prediction ($42.08\% \to 46.99\%$) and molecular property prediction ($77.47\% \to 83.52\%$).
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Explainability for Vision Foundation Models: A Survey
A structured review of 122 papers on explainability for vision foundation models, with a taxonomy and the finding that quantitative evaluation is rare (36%).
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.