BLaVe-CoT: Consistency-Aware Visual Question Answering for Blind and Low Vision Users

Wanyin Cheng; Zanxi Ruan

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

BLaVe-CoT: Consistency-Aware Visual Question Answering for Blind and Low Vision Users

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that visual question answering for blind and low vision users should first judge whether candidate answers point to the same image region or different regions, and presents a three-stage pipeline that outperforms prior meth

desk verdict Modest engineering paper on a niche benchmark; the F1 gain is plausible but the visual-consistency signal is unvalidated because thresholds are unreported and PolyFormer masks are admitted to be unreliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06010 v1 pith:PIBBGN3I submitted 2025-09-07 cs.CV

Wanyin Cheng , Zanxi Ruan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords visualquestionansweringblindandlowvisionanswerambiguitygroundingchain-of-thoughtreasoningconsistencypredictionVQA-AnswerTherapyassistiveAI

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

Conventional visual question answering assumes one image, one question, one answer. BLaVe-CoT starts from the observation that blind and low vision users often produce blurry photos and underspecified questions, so several answers can be simultaneously valid and each can be grounded in a different part of the image. The paper proposes treating the core task as a consistency judgment: given a set of candidate answers, decide whether they refer to the same region or to distinct regions, and only then reason about the answer. The framework generates candidates with a LoRA-tuned BLIP-2, draws a spatial mask for each candidate with PolyFormer, and applies a chain-of-thought rule that weighs mask overlap against semantic similarity. On the VQA-AnswerTherapy benchmark, the full pipeline reaches an F1 of 82.63, outperforming the strongest baseline by 2.58 points, with the largest recall gain and the best result on the VizWiz image split.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Visual-Semantic Consistency Prediction task together with its chain-of-thought decision rule. Given candidate answers and their masks, the rule computes a visual agreement signal from the minimum pairwise mask intersection-over-union, and a semantic disagreement signal from the maximum pairwise sentence-embedding similarity. It then sets the consistency label to the visual signal when all answers are numeric, to multi-grounding when semantic disagreement is detected, and to the visual signal otherwise. This modular structure is what turns answer diversity into an interpretable binary judgment, and it is the component whose removal costs the most in the ablation.

What would settle it

Run BLaVe-CoT on a held-out set of VQA-AnswerTherapy questions where human annotators agree on single versus multi grounding, then recompute predictions after replacing each PolyFormer mask with a shifted or shrunk version that keeps the same answer text. If the consistency label stays unchanged despite the mask perturbations, the visual-consistency signal is not what carries the decision; if it flips on the same questions where the paper's Figure 3 shows bad masks, that pinpoints the failure mode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that VQA for blind and low vision users should be reformulated as visual-semantic consistency prediction rather than single-answer prediction. The paper defines a function f(I,Q) that outputs s=1 when all valid answers point to one region and s=0 when they point to multiple regions. It demonstrates a concrete pipeline: a LoRA-tuned BLIP-2 proposes top-k candidate answers; PolyFormer turns each candidate into a binary segmentation mask; and a chain-of-thought module computes pairwise mask IoU and MiniLM semantic similarity, with a decision rule that gives priority to semantic disagreement except for numeric answers, where visual masks win. On the VQA-AnswerTherapy

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that PolyFormer's masks correctly locate the image region for each candidate answer; the paper itself shows cases where it does not, and if those errors are frequent the overlap-based consistency check will point the wrong way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same consistency binary could be used by assistive devices to decide whether to answer directly or ask the user to clarify which region they meant.
Evaluation of BLV visual question answering can reward models that correctly detect multi-grounding instead of penalizing annotator disagreement as a single ground truth.
LoRA adaptation of the answer proposer and the chain-of-thought reasoning module are complementary; the paper's ablation has each alone below the combined F1.
The method's largest recall gain over the ViLT baseline indicates it catches multi-grounded questions rather than defaulting to the majority 'single' label.
Numeric answers are treated as a special case that trusts visual masks over semantics, covering a common class of BLV questions about counts and measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

One can read the framework as a post-hoc ambiguity audit for any VQA model: feed it candidate answers, ground them, and run the same consistency rule to flag questions that need follow-up.
Because the visual-consistency signal depends entirely on PolyFormer masks, the method's success on new data will likely track the grounding model's ability to localize rare and cluttered BLV objects; comparing against a stronger referring-segmentation model would isolate that dependence.
The binary consistency label could be generalized to a continuous overlap score or a set of region clusters, letting a dialogue system present the user with the distinct regions as options.
Retesting with manually verified masks on a subset of VQA-AnswerTherapy would directly measure how much of the reported gain comes from reasoning versus from grounding.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a modest engineering contribution on the VQA-AnswerTherapy benchmark, and the headline F1 gain of +2.58 is plausible but not yet demonstrated. The paper's central idea—flagging when multiple valid answers are grounded in different image regions, rather than assuming a single answer—is a legitimate problem for BLV users, and the pipeline (LoRA-tuned BLIP-2 for candidate answers, PolyFormer for grounding, then a rule-based consistency check) is a reasonable composition not present in prior work. The ablation in Table II suggests both the LoRA tuning and the reasoning module each add something. Credit where due.

The soft spots are real. The decision rule in Eq. (8) defaults to the visual consistency flag C_V in all non-semantically-disagreeing cases, and C_V is a thresholded minimum pairwise IoU of PolyFormer masks. The paper never reports the thresholds tau_iou and tau_sem, so we can't tell if the result is stable. More seriously, Figure 3 admits that PolyFormer often localizes incorrectly on this data because of the training set. If the masks are wrong, the IoU signal is noise, and the whole consistency mechanism has no validated grounding. The ablation does not isolate this: Table II toggles LoRA and the CoT module as a joint block, not the visual mask component alone. There are also no error bars or significance tests, and the baselines' adaptation to the binary task is not described. Finally, calling this 'chain-of-thought' overstates a simple handcrafted rule.

None of these are fatal in themselves; the paper is coherent and the idea is worth exploring. But the empirical claim, as it stands, is conditional on unreported hyperparameters and unvalidated mask quality. A reader cannot tell whether the +2.58 F1 reflects the consistency mechanism or just the particular choice of thresholds and lucky mask behavior on this test set.

For whom: anyone working on assistive VQA or ambiguity-aware VQA will get a useful suggestion and a benchmark result to compare against. It's not a methods breakthrough. My recommendation: send it to peer review, but with a firm request to disclose thresholds, run repeated trials with variance, describe baseline adaptation, and quantify how often PolyFormer's masks fail and how that affects the decision. If those are fixed, the paper could be a solid workshop-level or short-conference contribution.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. BLaVe-CoT reframes VQA for blind and low vision (BLV) users as a visual-semantic consistency prediction problem: given an image-question pair, the system must decide whether multiple plausible answers refer to the same image region (single grounding) or to distinct regions (multiple groundings). The pipeline first uses a LoRA-tuned BLIP-2 model to propose k=3 candidate answers, then grounds each answer as a binary mask using PolyFormer, and finally applies a rule-based chain-of-thought module that combines pairwise mask IoU and MiniLM sentence-embedding cosine similarity. The final decision rule is Eq. (8), with thresholds tau_iou and tau_sem. Experiments on VQA-AnswerTherapy report that BLaVe-CoT achieves the best F1 of 82.63, including a +2.58 gain over the strongest baseline (ViLT), and a subset-level gain on the VizWiz split. The paper also includes an ablation of the LoRA and CoT components.

Significance. The task definition is meaningful and timely: it directly addresses answer diversity and visual grounding ambiguity in BLV-oriented VQA, an area where conventional single-answer evaluation is known to be inadequate. The proposed architecture is modular and interpretable, and the authors have released code, which is a concrete reproducibility asset. If the reported gains are robust, BLaVe-CoT would be a useful step toward deployable assistive VQA. However, the current manuscript does not yet establish this robustness: the core decision rule depends on unreported thresholds, the visual grounding signal is not validated (the paper's own Figure 3 acknowledges PolyFormer localization failures), and the evaluation uses one-class F1 without reporting class balance or trivial baselines. The central empirical claim is therefore conditional on several unverified choices. These issues are fixable within the scope of the paper, but they require additional experiments and reporting.

major comments (5)

[Eqs. (5), (7), (8); Section IV] The decision rule depends on thresholds tau_iou and tau_sem, but neither value is reported anywhere, nor is any sensitivity analysis provided. Because Eq. (8) returns C_V in every branch except the D_S=1 veto, the headline F1 is almost entirely determined by tau_iou and by the quality of PolyFormer masks. If tau_iou was chosen on the benchmark test set, the +2.58 F1 margin is not a free prediction. Please report the values, the selection procedure, and a sweep over both thresholds to show the margin is stable.
[Figure 3; Eqs. (3)-(5)] The visual-consistency signal is not validated. Figure 3's caption states that, due to limitations of the VizWiz-AnswerTherapy training set, PolyFormer 'excessively relies on visual localization... leading to incorrect answers.' Since C_V is a thresholded minimum pairwise IoU of PolyFormer masks, a single wrong mask flips s. The paper reports no measurement of mask accuracy on this benchmark, and the Table II ablation toggles the whole reasoning module rather than isolating grounding quality. Please add mask-quality experiments (e.g., IoU against ground-truth polygons) and/or an oracle-mask upper bound.
[Section IV-A, Eqs. (10)-(12)] The evaluation metric is one-class F1 on 'single' only. Without the class distribution and without 'always-single'/'always-multiple' baselines, the reported F1 values are difficult to interpret; a high always-single F1 is possible if the dataset is imbalanced. Please report the confusion matrix, class frequencies, and F1 for both classes or macro-F1. In addition, no error bars or significance tests are given; Figure 5b suggests a single run, and the epoch-40 checkpoint is chosen as 'best results across metrics,' which can overfit the test set.
[Table I, Section IV-B] The comparison omits the prior method most directly related to the proposed task. Reference [1] (Aboah et al., CVPR 2024) is titled 'Vision-language model-based polyformer for recognizing visual questions with multiple answer groundings' and targets the same VQA-AnswerTherapy consistency problem, yet no such model appears in Table I. The 'ViLT CVPR'24 [1]' entry is also mismatched with reference [1]'s title. Please include this baseline or justify its exclusion, and correct the citation.
[Eq. (8), Algorithm 1] The semantics of the decision rule are under-specified. As written, D_S only affects the output in a single branch (s=0 when D_S=1); in all other cases s=C_V. This is a veto, not the 'prioritizes semantic distinction' described in the text. Also, the condition 'all a_i are numeric' is never formally defined (e.g., regex for digits? spelled-out numbers?). Please specify the detection rule and clarify the intended logic, with a justification for why semantic similarity should not influence the numeric branch.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract/Keywords] The header 'Key words' should be 'Keywords'.
[Table I] The note says all metrics are evaluated on the 'single' class, but the table also reports VQAv2 F1 and VizWiz F1 columns; please clarify whether these subset columns use the same one-class protocol.
[Section III-D] The sentence ending 'provides robustness against edge cases—such as semantically divergent but visually similar answers, or numeric responses that lack strong language signal Figure 3.' is missing punctuation before 'Figure 3'; please fix.
[Section III-B] k=3 is fixed without any sensitivity analysis; please state whether top-3 decoding uses beam search and whether duplicate or nonsensical answers are filtered before grounding.
[References] Several future-work citations are self-citations; please ensure they are all necessary and formatted consistently with the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark result is an external evaluation, not a reduction to the method's own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical F1 score on the VQA-AnswerTherapy benchmark (Table I). The decision rule (Eqs. 4-8) is a hand-specified function of PolyFormer masks and MiniLM embeddings, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The thresholds tau_iou and tau_sem are hyperparameters; failing to report them is a reproducibility weakness, but there is no evidence in the paper that they were tuned on the test set or that the reported F1 is forced by construction. The ablation (Table II) shows the CoT reasoning module improves F1 over the frozen backbone (80.75 vs 78.21), so the consistency signal has independent content. The Figure 3 caption admits PolyFormer can localize incorrectly; this is an acknowledged external dependency/limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations ([4], [10], [16]) appear only in the future-work paragraph and are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The 'Visual-Semantic Consistency Prediction' task reformulates the existing benchmark objective, but renaming a task is not circularity in the derivation chain. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is assembled from existing models (BLIP-2, PolyFormer, MiniLM) and a hand-crafted decision rule with two unreported thresholds; the central performance claim depends on these choices.

free parameters (5)

k (number of candidate answers) = 3
Set by hand to balance diversity and noise; no sensitivity analysis reported (Section III-B).
tau_iou (IoU threshold) = not reported
Threshold in Eq. (5) used to decide visual consistency; value not given in the paper.
tau_sem (semantic similarity threshold) = not reported
Threshold in Eq. (7) used to decide semantic disagreement; value not reported.
LoRA rank r and other LoRA hyperparameters = not reported
LoRA applied to Q-Former query/key projections; specific rank and training settings omitted.
Training epochs/checkpoint selection = Epoch 40
Final checkpoint selected at epoch 40 based on Figure 5b; no early stopping rule described.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The VQA-AnswerTherapy annotations of single vs multiple groundings are reliable ground truth.
The entire evaluation depends on the benchmark's binary labels; paper gives no analysis of annotation noise.
domain assumption PolyFormer produces segmentation masks that spatially correspond to the candidate answers.
Eq. (3) assumes masks m_i highlight the region for answer a_i; Figure 3 acknowledges this can fail.
domain assumption MiniLM sentence embeddings capture the semantic distinction between candidate answers.
Eq. (6) uses cosine similarity of MiniLM embeddings to decide semantic disagreement.
domain assumption The binary single/multiple grounding task is the correct framing for BLV VQA ambiguity.
Paper defines task in Section III-A; no user study or qualitative validation of this framing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BLaVe-CoT: Consistency-Aware Visual Question Answering for Blind and Low Vision Users." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIBBGN3I

@misc{pith2026250906010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BLaVe-CoT: Consistency-Aware Visual Question Answering for Blind and Low Vision Users},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIBBGN3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06010}
}

read the original abstract

Visual Question Answering (VQA) holds great potential for assisting Blind and Low Vision (BLV) users, yet real-world usage remains challenging. Due to visual impairments, BLV users often take blurry or poorly framed photos and face difficulty in articulating specific questions about what they cannot fully see. As a result, their visual questions are frequently ambiguous, and different users may interpret them in diverse ways. This leads to multiple valid answers, each grounded in different image regions-posing a mismatch with conventional VQA systems that assume a single answer and region. To bridge this gap, we present BLaVe-CoT, a VQA framework designed to reason about answer consistency in the face of ambiguity. Our method proposes diverse candidate answers using a LoRA-tuned BLIP-2 model, then grounds each answer spatially using PolyFormer, and finally applies a chain-of-thought reasoning module to assess whether the answers refer to the same or different regions. Evaluated on the VQA-AnswerTherapy benchmark, BLaVe-CoT outperforms previous methods and proves more robust to the ambiguity and visual noise common in assistive settings. This work highlights the need for VQA systems that can adapt to real human uncertainty and provide inclusive support for BLV users. To foster further research and accessibility applications, we have made the code publicly available at https://github.com/Accecwan/BLaVe-CoT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06010 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Motivating example from a BLV VQA scenario. Due to perceptual and motor limitations, BLV users often capture poorly framed images and pose underspecified questions. To better study the challenges of answer diversity in VQA for BLV users, researchers introduced the VQAAnswerTherapy dataset [3]. It provides visual groundings for multiple valid answers per question, enabling fine-grained analysis of answer variabilit… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed BLaVe-CoT framework for ambiguity-aware Visual Question Answering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The limitations of visual localization. Due to the limitations of the VizWiz-AnswerTherapy training set, PolyFormer excessively relies on visual localization when processing VQA answers with different semantics, leading to incorrect answers. By incorporating CoT logic, which combines semantic information and visual masks for answer consistency evaluation, the model is able to more accurately recognize answer diversi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The CoT-Based Visual-Semantic consistency rea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ablation Results. (a) Effect of LoRA and reasoning modules. (b) Performance trend across training epochs. D. Training Stability Across Epochs As shown in Figure 5b, performance improves steadily across training epochs. We select Epoch 40 as the final checkpoint, as it …

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

How Much Does It Cost to Answer My Question? Benchmarking Cloud VLM-based VQA Systems
cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Preprocessing effects on cloud VLM VQA vary strongly by model, API paradigm, and provider token accounting, so no single preprocessing strategy is universally best.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Vision-language model-based polyformer for recognizing visual ques- tions with multiple answer groundings

Armstrong Aboah, Yuntae Jeon, Minsoo Park, and Seunghee Park. Vision-language model-based polyformer for recognizing visual ques- tions with multiple answer groundings. InProceedings of the CVPR 2024 on Vision-Language Intelligence, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Remote assistance for blind users in daily life: A survey about be my eyes

Mauro Avila, Katrin Wolf, Anke Brock, and Niels Henze. Remote assistance for blind users in daily life: A survey about be my eyes. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pages 1–2, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Vqa therapy: Exploring answer differences by visually grounding answers

Chongyan Chen, Samreen Anjum, and Danna Gurari. Vqa therapy: Exploring answer differences by visually grounding answers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15315–15325, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Refining pseudo labeling via multi- granularity confidence alignment for unsupervised cross domain object detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2025

Jiangming Chen, Li Liu, Wanxia Deng, Zhen Liu, Yu Liu, Ying- mei Wei, and Yongxiang Liu. Refining pseudo labeling via multi- granularity confidence alignment for unsupervised cross domain object detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Vqask: a multimodal android gpt- based application to help blind users visualize pictures

Maria De Marsico, Chiara Giacanelli, Clizia Giorgia Manganaro, Alessio Palma, and Davide Santoro. Vqask: a multimodal android gpt- based application to help blind users visualize pictures. InProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pages 1–5, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Towards understanding the use of mllm-enabled applications for visual interpretation by blind and low vision people

Ricardo E Gonzalez Penuela, Ruiying Hu, Sharon Lin, Tanisha Shende, and Shiri Azenkot. Towards understanding the use of mllm-enabled applications for visual interpretation by blind and low vision people. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–8, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people

Danna Gurari, Qing Li, Abigale J Stangl, Anhong Guo, Chi Lin, Kristen Grauman, Jiebo Luo, and Jeffrey P Bigham. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3608–3617, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

2022

Show all 21 references

[9]

Consistency and uncertainty: Identifying unre- liable responses from black-box vision-language models for selective visual question answering

Zaid Khan and Yun Fu. Consistency and uncertainty: Identifying unre- liable responses from black-box vision-language models for selective visual question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10854– 10863, 2024

2024
[10]

Dual-branch fusion with style modulation for cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation

Qiuyu Kong, Jiangming Chen, Jie Jiang, Zanxi Ruan, and Lai Kang. Dual-branch fusion with style modulation for cross-domain few-shot semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’24, page 2166–2174, 2024

2024
[11]

Natural language understanding and inference with mllm in visual question answering: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(8):1–36, 2025

Jiayi Kuang, Ying Shen, Jingyou Xie, Haohao Luo, Zhe Xu, Ronghao Li, Yinghui Li, Xianfeng Cheng, Xika Lin, and Yu Han. Natural language understanding and inference with mllm in visual question answering: A survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(8):1–36, 2025

2025
[12]

Blip-2: Boot- strapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Boot- strapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 19730–19742. PMLR, 2023

2023
[13]

Polyformer: Referring image segmentation as sequential polygon generation

Jiang Liu, Hui Ding, Zhaowei Cai, Yuting Zhang, Ravi Kumar Satzoda, Vijay Mahadevan, and R Manmatha. Polyformer: Referring image segmentation as sequential polygon generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 18653–18...

2023
[14]

An astute assistive device for mobility and object recognition for visually impaired people.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(5):449–460, 2019

Vidula V Meshram, Kailas Patil, Vishal A Meshram, and Felix Che Shu. An astute assistive device for mobility and object recognition for visually impaired people.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(5):449–460, 2019

2019
[15]

Dynamic conceptional con- trastive learning for generalized category discovery

Nan Pu, Zhun Zhong, and Nicu Sebe. Dynamic conceptional con- trastive learning for generalized category discovery. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 7579–7588, 2023

2023
[16]

Advances in few-shot action recognition: A comprehensive review

Zanxi Ruan, Yingmei Wei, Yifei Yuan, Yu Li, Yanming Guo, and Yux- iang Xie. Advances in few-shot action recognition: A comprehensive review. In2024 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD), pages 390–398. IEEE, 2024

2024
[17]

Dare: Diverse vi- sual question answering with robustness evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18023, 2024

Hannah Sterz, Jonas Pfeiffer, and Ivan Vuli ´c. Dare: Diverse vi- sual question answering with robustness evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18023, 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

the smart vision glasses

Ankit S Varshney, Maryam E Chougle, Chetna V Patel, and Mahen- drasinh D Chauhan. Evaluating usability of “the smart vision glasses” for individuals who are visually impaired and totally blind.Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology, pages 10–4103, 2025

2025
[19]

A survey of 17 indoor travel assistance systems for blind and visually impaired people.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 52(1):134–148, 2021

Jie Wang, Erwu Liu, Yuanzhe Geng, Xinyu Qu, and Rui Wang. A survey of 17 indoor travel assistance systems for blind and visually impaired people.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 52(1):134–148, 2021

2021
[20]

Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers

Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hang Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020

2020
[21]

A survey on vqa: Datasets and approaches

Yeyun Zou and Qiyu Xie. A survey on vqa: Datasets and approaches. In2020 2nd International Conference on Information Technology and Computer Application (ITCA), pages 289–297. IEEE, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Vision-language model-based polyformer for recognizing visual ques- tions with multiple answer groundings

Armstrong Aboah, Yuntae Jeon, Minsoo Park, and Seunghee Park. Vision-language model-based polyformer for recognizing visual ques- tions with multiple answer groundings. InProceedings of the CVPR 2024 on Vision-Language Intelligence, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Remote assistance for blind users in daily life: A survey about be my eyes

Mauro Avila, Katrin Wolf, Anke Brock, and Niels Henze. Remote assistance for blind users in daily life: A survey about be my eyes. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pages 1–2, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Vqa therapy: Exploring answer differences by visually grounding answers

Chongyan Chen, Samreen Anjum, and Danna Gurari. Vqa therapy: Exploring answer differences by visually grounding answers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15315–15325, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Refining pseudo labeling via multi- granularity confidence alignment for unsupervised cross domain object detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2025

Jiangming Chen, Li Liu, Wanxia Deng, Zhen Liu, Yu Liu, Ying- mei Wei, and Yongxiang Liu. Refining pseudo labeling via multi- granularity confidence alignment for unsupervised cross domain object detection.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Vqask: a multimodal android gpt- based application to help blind users visualize pictures

Maria De Marsico, Chiara Giacanelli, Clizia Giorgia Manganaro, Alessio Palma, and Davide Santoro. Vqask: a multimodal android gpt- based application to help blind users visualize pictures. InProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pages 1–5, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Towards understanding the use of mllm-enabled applications for visual interpretation by blind and low vision people

Ricardo E Gonzalez Penuela, Ruiying Hu, Sharon Lin, Tanisha Shende, and Shiri Azenkot. Towards understanding the use of mllm-enabled applications for visual interpretation by blind and low vision people. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–8, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people

Danna Gurari, Qing Li, Abigale J Stangl, Anhong Guo, Chi Lin, Kristen Grauman, Jiebo Luo, and Jeffrey P Bigham. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3608–3617, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

2022