REVIEW 4 cited by
Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning
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
read the original abstract
Recently, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved significant success across multiple disciplines due to their exceptional instruction-following capabilities and extensive world knowledge. However, whether these MLLMs possess human-like compositional reasoning abilities remains an open problem. To unveil their reasoning behaviors, we first curate a \textbf{M}ultimodal \textbf{A}ssumptive \textbf{R}ea\textbf{s}oning Benchmark (MARS-Bench) in this paper. Interestingly, we find that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question, whereas such presuppositions appear naive to human reasoning. Besides, we also propose a simple yet effective method, Active Deduction (AD), a novel reinforcement learning paradigm to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction before reaching a final decision. Equipped with the proposed AD method, a MLLM demonstrates significant improvements in assumptive reasoning abilities without compromising its general-purpose question-answering performance. We also provide extensive evaluations of both open-source and private MLLMs on MARS-Bench, along with experimental analyses of the AD method.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning
VCA finds 12.73–26.25% of spatial decisions are correct yet uncredited by the image, and separates marginal image support from relation-specific visual response.
-
Argus Inspection: Do Multimodal Large Language Models Possess the Eye of Panoptes?
A new 1,430-item multimodal benchmark shows that leading multimodal LLMs rarely notice small visual traps needed for commonsense safety reasoning, with top scores near 0.46 on a scale whose maximum is about 0.97.
-
A Review of Multimodal Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Past, Present and Future
A historical review that organizes multimodal explainability methods into four chronological eras and three explainability types, extending coverage to generative LLMs.
-
Retrieval Augmented Recipe Generation
A retrieval-augmented LMM with stochastic retrieval sampling and self-consistency voting improves recipe generation from food images on Recipe1M.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.