Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Whiteboard-of-Thought: Thinking Step-by-Step Across Modalities

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

arxiv 2406.14562 v1 pith:BUH662HD submitted 2024-06-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CV

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CV
keywords reasoningvisuallanguagemodelswhiteboard-of-thoughtimageslargemodalities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

When presented with questions involving visual thinking, humans naturally switch reasoning modalities, often forming mental images or drawing visual aids. Large language models have shown promising results in arithmetic and symbolic reasoning by expressing intermediate reasoning in text as a chain of thought, yet struggle to extend this capability to answer text queries that are easily solved by visual reasoning, even with extensive multimodal pretraining. We introduce a simple method, whiteboard-of-thought prompting, to unlock the visual reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models across modalities. Whiteboard-of-thought prompting provides multimodal large language models with a metaphorical `whiteboard' to draw out reasoning steps as images, then returns these images back to the model for further processing. We find this can be accomplished with no demonstrations or specialized modules, instead leveraging models' existing ability to write code with libraries such as Matplotlib and Turtle. This simple approach shows state-of-the-art results on four difficult natural language tasks that involve visual and spatial reasoning. We identify multiple settings where GPT-4o using chain-of-thought fails dramatically, including more than one where it achieves $0\%$ accuracy, while whiteboard-of-thought enables up to $92\%$ accuracy in these same settings. We present a detailed exploration of where the technique succeeds as well as its sources of error.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MagiC: Evaluating Multimodal Cognition Toward Grounded Visual Reasoning

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MagiC evaluates answer correctness, reasoning validity, grounding fidelity, and self-correction on about 900 hand-annotated visual questions across 15 vision-language models.

Pith tools