Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

How Multimodal LLMs Solve Image Tasks: A Lens on Visual Grounding, Task Reasoning, and Answer Decoding

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A linear probe at every layer shows that multimodal LLMs run the same four-stage pipeline, from grounding to answer formatting, and differ only in how deep each stage runs.

desk verdict A solid probing study with a clever output-format control; the four-stage structure is plausible, but the causal claim about base-LLM architecture is underdetermined by the three model comparisons. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20279 v1 pith:KK4FGJ3I submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CL

Zhuoran Yu , Yong Jae Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CL
keywords multimodallargelanguagemodelslinearprobinglayer-wiseanalysisvisualgroundingsemanticreasoninganswerdecodingpromptvariationinterpretability
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 asks what happens inside a multimodal LLM between the image being shown and the answer being spoken. By training a simple linear classifier at each layer to recognize fine-grained visual classes from the last-token embedding, and then replaying the same images under three kinds of prompt change, the authors map where each stage of computation happens. They claim that LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3, and Qwen2-VL all follow the same four-stage pipeline: visual grounding, lexical integration, semantic reasoning, and answer formatting. They further argue that visual tokenization, instruction-tuning data, and pretraining corpus barely move the stage boundaries, whereas the base LLM architecture reallocates depth between stages. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a single lens for comparing how any multimodal LLM organizes its internal work.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a layer-wise linear probe combined with three controlled prompt perturbations. A linear classifier is trained on the last-token embedding at each decoder layer to predict fine-grained visual classes under a fixed anchor question; at test time the probe is frozen and images are replayed with prompts that change only the surface wording, only the semantic concept, or only the answer format. The drop in probe accuracy relative to the anchor measures a layer's sensitivity to each perturbation, and the pattern of these drops across depth localizes the stage boundaries. The output-format variant is the key isolating device: because it keeps reasoning fixed and changes only answer tokens, the layer at which its accuracy curve departs from the anchor marks the transition from reasoning to decoding.

What would settle it

Train separate probes on each prompt variant's own embeddings and compare whether the variant-specific probes achieve anchor-level accuracy at the same layers; if they do at all layers, the accuracy drops in this paper measure distribution shift rather than loss of encoding, and the stage boundaries would not be identified by this protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the internal processing of multimodal LLMs is stage-wise and consistent across models. Using a probe trained on an anchor prompt ('Does this image show an animal?'), with dog-breed classification as the readout, the authors measure how probe accuracy changes under lexical variants (e.g., image to picture), semantic negation (animal to plane), and output-format variants (yes/no to 1/0). For LLaVA-1.5 the resulting profile divides into layers 1-4 visual grounding, 5-11 lexical integration, 12-15 semantic reasoning, and 16+ answer formatting; LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3 shows the same structure. Qwen2-VL also shows the same sequence but with fewer layers on grounding and a longer reasoning window. The authors conclude that the sequence is intrinsic to how these models process multimodal input, while the base LLM's architecture controls how many layers each stage receives.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a probe trained on anchor-prompt embeddings, when dropped onto variant-prompt embeddings, produces accuracy losses that faithfully reflect the layer's sensitivity to the perturbed feature rather than distribution shift or miscalibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any LLaVA-style model with a frozen vision encoder should reproduce the same four-stage sequence: grounding, lexical integration, semantic reasoning, and answer formatting.
  • Differences in visual tokenization (576 fixed tokens, multi-resolution chunking, dynamic resolution) and in instruction-tuning or pretraining data do not by themselves change where the stages fall.
  • The base LLM architecture is the main knob: switching from a LLaMA-family base to a Qwen-family base reallocates depth, giving Qwen2-VL a longer reasoning window and a shorter grounding phase.
  • The output-format variant acts as a location tool for reasoning: the layers where accuracy tracks the anchor before dropping mark where the model commits to a decision independent of answer tokens.
  • Probing with this lightweight protocol can compare any MLLM's internal organization without model-specific instrumentation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the stage map transfers, then causally intervening at the semantic-reasoning layers should change the answer content but not the phrasing, while intervening at the formatting layers should change wording only; this is a directly testable prediction the paper does not run.
  • The invariance claim covers only LLaVA-style architectures; extending the same three-variant probe to pre-LLM fusion or early-fusion designs would tell whether the four-stage sequence is a property of multimodal transformers generally or of the projector-plus-LLM design family.
  • The method should be stress-tested on tasks where the answer vocabulary is not binary, since the yes/no anchor and the 1/0 format variant may make the reasoning/decoding split easier to see than it would be with free-form output.
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 proposes a layer-wise linear probing framework for multimodal LLMs. The authors extract last-token embeddings at each decoder layer for a fixed 'anchor' prompt and a fine-grained dog-breed classification task, then test fixed probes under three prompt-variation families: lexical rewrites, semantic negation, and output-format changes. On LLaVA-1.5 they report a four-stage structure (visual grounding layers 1-4, lexical integration 5-13, semantic reasoning 12-15, answer formatting 16+), observe a similar structure in LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3, and a shift in stage allocation in Qwen2-VL. The paper concludes that visual tokenization, instruction-tuning data, and pretraining corpus do not change the stage-wise structure, while the base-LLM architecture controls layer allocation across stages.

Significance. If the descriptive stage-wise pattern is correct, the paper offers a lightweight, model-agnostic interpretability tool and a useful cross-model comparison of a substantive phenomenon: that MLLMs appear to process visual grounding, lexical integration, reasoning, and output formatting in distinct depth bands. The strength of the paper is its controlled prompt-variation design and the honesty of its Limitations section. However, the central causal claims about invariance to tokenization/data and sensitivity to base-LLM architecture are underdetermined by the present experiments, and the quantitative evidence lacks error bars or statistical controls. The descriptive claim is plausible and worth publishing after revision; the causal claim requires either substantial new experiments or explicit weakening.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The causal attribution in Section 3.3 is not supported by the model comparisons. The LLaVA-1.5 vs. LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3 pair varies visual tokenization (576 tokens vs. multi-resolution 4x tokens), instruction-tuning data, and the base LLM simultaneously; LLaMA-3 is not architecturally identical to Vicuna/LLaMA-2, as it uses a different tokenizer, grouped-query attention, and pretraining objective/corpus. The statement in §3.3.1 that LLaMA-3 "shares architecture with LLaVA-1.5's Vicuna" is inaccurate. Similarly, the LLaVA-1.5 vs. Qwen2-VL comparison changes the vision encoder, projector, tokenization, instruction data, and base architecture all at once. The abstract's claim that tokenization, tuning data, and pretraining corpus do not affect the stage structure, while architecture controls layer allocation, therefore goes beyond what the two two-model comparisons can identify. Please either run controlled ablations with one factor varied at a time, or rephrase the conclusion as a hypothesis with the confounds explicitly stated.
  2. [§2.2, Figures 3-6] The core inference from a probe accuracy drop to a layer's "sensitivity" or "loss of encoding" conflates distribution shift with loss of task-relevant information. A probe trained on anchor-prompt embeddings can drop in accuracy on variant-prompt embeddings merely because the variant changes the feature distribution, even if the same linear decision boundary still exists in the variant space. The paper does not provide a control such as training new probes on each variant's embeddings and showing whether accuracy recovers, nor a null-prompt condition unrelated to the task. Without such controls, the stage boundaries (e.g., layers 5-13 for lexical integration, layers 16+ for decoding) are not uniquely determined. Please add at least a variant-trained-probe control and a null-variant calibration.
  3. [§3.1-§3.2, Figures 3-6] All probing curves are single runs with no error bars, no multiple seeds, and no significance tests. The paper's specific layer boundaries (1-4, 5-13, 12-15, 16+) are read off qualitative curve shapes, and small differences between models (e.g., Qwen2-VL's "extended reasoning" range) are asserted without any uncertainty estimate. Please report multiple training seeds or bootstrapped confidence intervals, and ideally a statistical test comparing accuracy across layer groups. The output-format variant split between reasoning and decoding also rests on a single prompt pair ("yes/no" vs. "1/0"); multiple format manipulations would strengthen this central distinction.
  4. [§2.1] The model-compliance filtering introduces a free threshold ("confident yes") that is never specified, and the paper does not report how many images remain per class per model after filtering. Since each model filters a different subset of ImageNet, the evaluation sets differ across models, which can bias the cross-model comparisons in Section 3.3. Additionally, moving 300 images per class from the ImageNet training split to the validation set based on model behavior creates a non-standard, model-dependent split. Please report the compliance threshold, the final dataset sizes, the overlap of retained images across models, and include an ablation showing that the curves are stable under different filtering thresholds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/header] The running title on page 1 contains a typo: "T asks" should be "Tasks."
  2. [§3.3.1] "LLaV A-Next" and "QWen2-VL" have inconsistent spacing and capitalization; please standardize to "LLaVA-Next" and "Qwen2-VL."
  3. [Conclusion, §5] The conclusion states a "three-stage hierarchy" (grounding, integration, decoding) while Section 3.2's summary and Figure 1 describe four stages including a separate semantic-reasoning stage. Please reconcile the numbering.
  4. [§2.1, anchor prompt] The anchor prompt "The answer must be always yes or no" is syntactically ambiguous; if the intended meaning is that the answer must always be "yes" for the dog images, rephrase the prompt and the compliance filter description to match.
  5. [§3.3] The layer-depth comparison between LLaVA-1.5 (32 layers), LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3 (32 layers), and Qwen2-VL (28 layers) is made in absolute layer indices; a normalized depth analysis would help separate architectural depth allocation from differences in total layer count.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the probing study is self-contained; stage labels are post-hoc descriptions of measured probe curves, not quantities derived from the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. Linear probes are trained on anchor-prompt embeddings (Section 2.1), then evaluated under prompt variants (Section 2.2); the reported stage boundaries (e.g., 'layers 12–15 are responsible for semantic reasoning') are summaries of the measured accuracy curves in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6. No equation reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to LLaVA-1.5 and LLaVA-Next (Liu et al., 2023; 2024a; 2024b) are used only to identify the models being probed, not to justify the stage structure; there is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result. The main weakness is that the Section 3.3 comparisons vary architecture, visual tokenization, instruction-tuning data, and pretraining corpus simultaneously, so the causal attribution to 'base LLM architecture' is confounded; however, confounding is an experimental validity concern, not circularity under the stated hard rules. The paper also includes a Limitations paragraph acknowledging that the identified stages may not transfer to other fusion architectures, which further shows the claims are not made circularly immune. Overall, the central claim is an interpretation of independently collected probe measurements, and the score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the probing interpretation and on the comparison logic; the listed assumptions are the ones that, if false, would change the conclusion. No invented entities are introduced. Stage boundaries and the compliance filter are the main hand-chosen inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • Stage boundary layers for LLaVA-1.5 = 1-4 grounding, 5-11 lexical, 12-15 reasoning, 16+ formatting
    Chosen post hoc from probe accuracy curves in Figures 3 and 4; no formal selection procedure or uncertainty is reported.
  • Model compliance filtering threshold = Not specified beyond 'confident yes'
    Required to decide which images are kept for probe evaluation; directly determines the evaluation set for each variant.
  • Images moved per class from ImageNet train to validation = 300 per class
    An arbitrary constant chosen to retain enough examples after compliance filtering; affects probe training set size.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linear probe accuracy is a valid measure of the information present in a layer's representation.
    Standard probing assumption; if the probe fails to fit or generalize, accuracy drops may reflect probe limitations rather than absence of information. Invoked in Section 2.1 when training linear classifiers per layer.
  • domain assumption Accuracy changes under prompt variants reflect layer sensitivity to that perturbation, not probe miscalibration or covariate shift.
    Load-bearing interpretation step in Section 2.2 and all results sections; no control probe trained on variant embeddings is included to validate it.
  • domain assumption Filtering to samples where the model answers with expected tokens does not bias cross-variant comparisons.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2 apply per-variant filtering, so test populations differ across variants; the paper assumes this does not drive the observed accuracy differences.
  • domain assumption The last-token embedding is a sufficient substrate to localize functional stages.
    All probes are trained on the last token only, as described in Section 2.1; the paper assumes this location captures the stage-wise computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Multimodal LLMs Solve Image Tasks: A Lens on Visual Grounding, Task Reasoning, and Answer Decoding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KK4FGJ3I

@misc{pith2026250820279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Multimodal LLMs Solve Image Tasks: A Lens on Visual Grounding, Task Reasoning, and Answer Decoding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KK4FGJ3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20279}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of vision-language tasks, yet their internal processing dynamics remain underexplored. In this work, we introduce a probing framework to systematically analyze how MLLMs process visual and textual inputs across layers. We train linear classifiers to predict fine-grained visual categories (e.g., dog breeds) from token embeddings extracted at each layer, using a standardized anchor question. To uncover the functional roles of different layers, we evaluate these probes under three types of controlled prompt variations: (1) lexical variants that test sensitivity to surface-level changes, (2) semantic negation variants that flip the expected answer by modifying the visual concept in the prompt, and (3) output format variants that preserve reasoning but alter the answer format. Applying our framework to LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-3, and Qwen2-VL, we identify a consistent stage-wise structure in which early layers perform visual grounding, middle layers support lexical integration and semantic reasoning, and final layers prepare task-specific outputs. We further show that while the overall stage-wise structure remains stable across variations in visual tokenization, instruction tuning data, and pretraining corpus, the specific layer allocation to each stage shifts notably with changes in the base LLM architecture. Our findings provide a unified perspective on the layer-wise organization of MLLMs and offer a lightweight, model-agnostic approach for analyzing multimodal representation dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Layer-wise stage comparison between LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen2-VL. Each colored segment corresponds to a distinct functional phase identified by our probing analysis: Grounding (visual input encoding), Lexical Integration (alignment between image and prompt phrasing), Semantic Reasoning (internal answer formulation), and Decoding (output generation). While both models exhibit the same stage-wise structure, Qwen2- VL alloca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Linear probing at decoder layer k. Training (top): We pass training images with an anchor question through the frozen multimodal LLM, extract the sequence’s last-token representation at layer k, and fit a linear probe on the ground-truth labels (in this example, for dog breed classification). Testing (bottom): we keep the probe fixed and evaluate it on last-token features from testing images under prompt variants (e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probing accuracy across layers for lexical and semantic negation variants. Left: Lexical variants preserve the expected answer while modifying surface phrasing (e.g., image → picture, show → feature). Accuracy drops sharply in middle layers, revealing where visual-textual alignment occurs, but recovers in deeper layers as the model converges on the correct decision. Right: Semantic negation introduces a shift in bot… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the probing accuracy across layers under this controlled evaluation. Early layers (before layer 12) show accuracy patterns similar to those under lexical variations, reflecting sensitivity to minor wording changes in the prompt. Notably, accuracy under the output…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probing analysis with Lexical Variant and Semantic Negation Variant for LLaVA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probing accuracy on format-instruction variants ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. From Execution to Education: A Bloom-Aligned Framework for Measuring Educational Control in LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    On 2,520 programming tasks, matched Qwen general and coder models reliably raise Bloom cognitive demand but fail to lower it, so execution skill does not imply educational control.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale N Fung, and Steven Hoi

    URL https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/ . Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale N Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision- language models with instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 36:49250–49267,

    work page 2023

  2. [6]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    Transcoders find interpretable llm feature circuits

    Jacob Dunefsky, Philippe Chlenski, and Neel Nanda. Transcoders find interpretable llm feature circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11944,

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders

    Leo Gao, Tom Dupr´e la Tour, Henk Tillman, Gabriel Goh, Rajan Troll, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, and Jeffrey Wu. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04093,

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    What do vlms notice? a mechanistic interpretability pipeline for gaussian-noise- free text-image corruption and evaluation

    Michal Golovanevsky, William Rudman, Vedant Palit, Ritambhara Singh, and Carsten Eickhoff. What do vlms notice? a mechanistic interpretability pipeline for gaussian-noise- free text-image corruption and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16320,

    arXiv

  6. [11]

    How to use and interpret activation patching

    11 Published as a conference paper at COLM 2025 Stefan Heimersheim and Neel Nanda. How to use and interpret activation patching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15255,

    arXiv 2025

  7. [13]

    Mmneuron: Discovering neuron-level domain-specific interpretation in multimodal large language model

    Jiahao Huo, Yibo Yan, Boren Hu, Yutao Yue, and Xuming Hu. Mmneuron: Discovering neuron-level domain-specific interpretation in multimodal large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11193,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Sparse autoencoders reveal universal feature spaces across large language models

    Michael Lan, Philip Torr, Austin Meek, Ashkan Khakzar, David Krueger, and Fazl Barez. Sparse autoencoders reveal universal feature spaces across large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06981,

    arXiv

Show all 23 references
  1. [15]

    Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, January 2024a

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Sheng Shen, and Yong Jae Lee. Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, January 2024a. URL https://llava-vl.github.io/blog/2024-01-30-llava-next/ . Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Le...

    2024

  2. [16]

    Ac- cessed: 2025-03-26

    URL https:// www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens . Ac- cessed: 2025-03-26. Clement Neo, Luke Ong, Philip Torr, Mor Geva, David Krueger, and Fazl Barez. Towards interpreting visual information processing in vision-language models. arXiv pre...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [17]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi `ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023a. Hugo Touvron,...

    2025 arXiv

  4. [18]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191,

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    Probing large language models from a human behavioral perspective

    Xintong Wang, Xiaoyu Li, Xingshan Li, and Chris Biemann. Probing large language models from a human behavioral perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05216,

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    How interpretable are reasoning explanations from prompting large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11863,

    Wei Jie Yeo, Ranjan Satapathy, Rick Siow Mong Goh, and Erik Cambria. How interpretable are reasoning explanations from prompting large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11863,

    arXiv

  7. [21]

    Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models

    Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068,

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

    arXiv

  9. [2017]

    Llama scope: Extracting millions of features from llama-3.1-8b with sparse autoencoders

    Zhengfu He, Wentao Shu, Xuyang Ge, Lingjie Chen, Junxuan Wang, Yunhua Zhou, Frances Liu, Qipeng Guo, Xuanjing Huang, Zuxuan Wu, et al. Llama scope: Extracting millions of features from llama-3.1-8b with sparse autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20526,

    arXiv

  10. [2019]

    Qwen technical report

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 ,

    arXiv

  11. [2020]

    Chameleon: Mixed-modal early-fusion foundation models

    Chameleon Team. Chameleon: Mixed-modal early-fusion foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09818,

    arXiv

  12. [2021]

    A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations

    John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language T echnologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Pa...

    2019

  13. [2022]

    Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models

    Wanjun Zhong, Ruixiang Cui, Yiduo Guo, Yaobo Liang, Shuai Lu, Yanlin Wang, Amin Saied, Weizhu Chen, and Nan Duan. Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06364,

    arXiv

  14. [2023]

    Understanding information storage and transfer in multi-modal large language models

    Samyadeep Basu, Martin Grayson, Cecily Morrison, Besmira Nushi, Soheil Feizi, and Daniela Massiceti. Understanding information storage and transfer in multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04236,

    arXiv

  15. [2024]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877–1901,

    1901

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.