Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Trace, Verify, and Correct: A Training-Free Framework for Spatial Reasoning in Multimodal LLMs

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that spatial reasoning errors in multimodal LLMs can be caught by checking each intermediate spatial claim against visual evidence, and that this training-free correction lifts accuracy by 8.55 points on average.

desk verdict A real training-free correction framework with a plausible causal story; the average accuracy claim holds up, but the depth-verification mechanism is thinner than the headline implies and deserves referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04759 v1 pith:Q6S7TCXV submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CV cs.CL

Yang Yang , Jiawei Chen , Tairan Chen , Zhaoxia Yin This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.CL
keywords spatialreasoningmultimodallargelanguagemodelschain-of-thoughtperceptualfaithfulnessevidencegraphreliability-awareverificationtraining-freeinferencecorrectionobjectgrounding
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

Multimodal large language models often produce chain-of-thought reasoning in which an intermediate spatial claim, such as "the apple is to the right of the bowl," contradicts the image, and that error then propagates to the final answer. The paper tries to establish that correcting such errors requires process-level verification rather than just adding spatial cues or retraining. It proposes a training-free pipeline that extracts atomic spatial evidence from each reasoning step, binds it to visual measurements such as object existence, bounding-box centers, and depth, checks whether those measurements are reliable, and when a contradiction is found, asks the original model to regenerate only the affected reasoning from the earliest contradicted step. The authors report that across three multimodal LLMs and five benchmarks the method averages 68.94% accuracy, 8.55 percentage points above the compared baselines, and that it raises the spatial evidence faithfulness of intermediate reasoning. If true, the framework gives a model-agnostic way to make spatial reasoning auditable and correctable without any parameter updates.

What carries the argument

The Spatial Evidence Graph (SEG) is a graph whose nodes are visual entities plus an image-reference node, whose directed edges are spatial relations, and whose attributes record evidence type, source reasoning step, and bound visual evidence; the Spatial Evidence Reliability Assessment (SERA) computes entity-level reliability scores for existence, localization, and geometric measurement and aggregates them into HIGH, MEDIUM, and LOW tiers that gate whether evidence can override the model's judgment. Verification uses object existence scores, normalized bounding-box centers for left, right, above, and below relations, and mask-based monocular depth ordering in which a smaller depth statistic means closer to the camera. Only the earliest evidence unit contradicted by HIGH-reliability evidence triggers regeneration by the same MLLM.

What would settle it

Take a fixed benchmark subset, shuffle the monocular depth orderings fed into SERA's Depth judgments, and measure final-answer accuracy: if the pipeline still gains the reported 8.55 points, the benefit is not coming from correct depth verification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that perceptually unfaithful chain-of-thought reasoning is a principal cause of spatial QA errors, and that these errors can be corrected at inference time by tracing each atomic spatial judgment to its source step, verifying it against independently computed visual evidence, and regenerating only the reasoning that follows the earliest reliable contradiction. Empirically, fully faithful chains reach 51.10% accuracy versus 34.41% for unfaithful chains on RealWorldQA, and the proposed SEG/SERA framework raises average accuracy to 68.94% across 15 model-dataset settings, beating the compared baselines by 8.55 percentage points on average. The paper further claims the mechanism works by improving intermediate spatial evidence faithfulness, not merely by adding spatial cues.

Load-bearing premise

The framework treats monocular depth orderings as ground truth for relative-depth evidence once reliability gating passes, so a depth estimator that misorders two objects without being flagged will instruct the model to revise a correct spatial judgment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unfaithful intermediate steps are a measurable drag on accuracy: on RealWorldQA, fully faithful CoTs answer correctly 51.10% of the time versus 34.41% for chains containing at least one contradicted spatial unit.
  • A training-free, model-agnostic verification pass helps all three tested backbones, raising average accuracy by 6.26, 12.44, and 4.13 percentage points for Qwen, InternVL, and Llama respectively.
  • Locating the earliest contradicted evidence is necessary: generic self-revision without localization degrades accuracy on two of the three models, while the targeted correction improves all three.
  • Reliability gating is doing real work: removing SERA or its gating lowers accuracy by about 3 to 4 percentage points, and loose thresholds that admit noisy evidence hurt both faithfulness and accuracy.
  • The correction route is complementary to inference-time spatial augmentation: combining the framework with the SpatialPIN 3D-prior prompting baseline outperforms either method alone on RealWorldQA.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the earliest-contradiction rule embodies a linear error-propagation assumption; a version that also scores later contradicted units by severity or confidence might behave differently when an early contradiction is inconclusive but a later one is decisive.
  • Editorial inference: because depth verification relies on monocular ordering, systematic depth-estimator biases such as textureless or mirrored surfaces would be inherited as wrong corrections; swapping in stereo- or LiDAR-derived depth would test how much of the gain comes from the verification logic versus the depth prior.
  • Editorial inference: SEG's structured evidence units could double as an explanation artifact, letting a user see exactly which image-derived measurement refuted which reasoning step; the paper does not explore this audit use.
  • Editorial inference: the reported efficiency numbers show about 2.8 times end-to-end latency over vanilla reasoning with an absolute runtime of roughly 2.5 seconds, so the method is practical for offline QA but likely too slow for real-time embodied use, and its cost scaling with longer chains is untested in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-free, model-agnostic framework, SEG/SERA, for improving spatial reasoning in multimodal LLMs. It extracts atomic spatial evidence units from chain-of-thought reasoning, organizes them into a Spatial Evidence Graph, verifies each unit against visual evidence (object existence, bounding-box layout, and monocular depth) after a reliability gate, and then asks the original MLLM to regenerate reasoning from the earliest reliably contradicted evidence unit. The authors report consistent final-answer accuracy gains across three MLLMs and five benchmarks, with an average accuracy of 68.94% and an average gain of 8.55 percentage points over compared baselines, and they present auxiliary analyses linking improved intermediate faithfulness (SEF) to higher final-answer accuracy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the framework is a practically valuable intervention: it requires no training, no parameter access, and no task-specific adaptation, and it targets a real failure mode of MLLM spatial reasoning. The paper has notable strengths: it includes human validation of the evidence extractor and verifier, ablations of the main components, threshold-sensitivity analysis, transfer experiments, and a commitment to open-source code. These provide useful evidence for reproducibility. However, the strongest quantitative claim rests on settings with very small sample sizes, no confidence intervals, and a decisive class (Contradicted) whose human-validated F1 is only 58.8%. The depth-verification chain also treats monocular depth orderings as authoritative without validating their inter-object accuracy. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims and require additional analysis before the results can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section C.1, Section 3.2] The relative-depth verification chain treats monocular depth ordering as ground truth: Section C.1 declares o_i closer_than o_j iff z(o_i) < z(o_j), where z(o) is a mask-based statistic from a monocular depth estimator. The SERA geometric reliability in Section 3.2 penalizes only small mask area and high within-region depth variance; it never checks whether the estimated inter-object depth ordering is correct. A confident but wrong depth ordering can therefore pass the HIGH gate and force the regenerating MLLM to reverse a spatially correct front/behind judgment. The verifier validation in Table 6 reports no breakdown by evidence type and only 291 annotated units, so the accuracy of exactly the depth-based decisions that can be wrong is unknown. Please report per-type (depth vs. 2D vs. existence) verifier accuracy against human labels, and evaluate whether depth-gated corrections improve accuracy when the depth ordering is validated by an independent cue or by human judgment.
  2. [Table 6, Section 4.5] The human validation of the verifier shows F1 for the Contradicted class of only 58.82 on both RealWorldQA and GQA, with Macro-F1 of 83.11 and 77.85. Since the framework triggers correction only on CONTRADICTED units, the low F1-C means the class that actually drives the intervention is the least reliably identified; a substantial fraction of true contradictions may be missed, or contradiction flags may have low precision. Please report the confusion matrix, separate precision/recall for each class, and a breakdown by evidence type, and show how missed contradictions affect the final-answer gain. Without this, the claim that corrections are driven by 'reliable visual evidence' is not supported for the class that actually drives the intervention.
  3. [Table 2, Sections 4.1 and 4.2] The central quantitative claim rests on Table 2, but no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported, and two of the five benchmarks have only 60 (LLaVA-Bench-in-the-Wild) and 96 (MMHal-Bench) samples. The average gain of 8.55 points is an unweighted mean over 15 settings with very different sample sizes; several per-setting gains are small (e.g., Qwen on GQA: 57.20 vs. 56.21; Llama on MMHal: 55.21 vs. 54.17), while GQA, the largest setting, shows mixed improvements across backbones. Please report bootstrap confidence intervals or per-sample paired tests for each setting and for the aggregate claim, and clarify whether the aggregate is weighted or unweighted.
  4. [Table 3, Sections 2.1 and 4.3] The causal interpretation that accuracy gains come from improved perceptual faithfulness is not fully established. Section 2.1 shows an association between faithfulness and accuracy, and Table 3 reports SEF improvements with human evaluation, but the automatic SEF is computed by the same verifier that drives the corrections, so the SEF gain could partly reflect the method's agreement with its own labels. The human-evaluation row in Table 3 is reported only as aggregate numbers on 200-example subsets, with no annotation procedure, sample size, or per-sample agreement. Please provide the human annotation details and, ideally, an analysis of whether the final-answer improvement is mediated by changes in human-judged faithfulness (e.g., stratify samples by whether the correction changed a contradicted unit to supported).
  5. [Section C.2, Section 3] The selection of the earliest contradicted evidence unit as the unique intervention point is asserted but not tested. The framework discards later contradicted units even when they are independent of the earliest one (Section C.2), yet no ablation compares earliest-only correction with correcting all contradicted units or with a random contradicted unit. Since this design choice is central to the claimed process-oriented advantage, please add such a comparison on at least RealWorldQA and GQA.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The table contains formatting errors with missing separators between numbers in several cells (e.g., "85.4360.1063.54", "60.0263.5460.17", "43.0186.6763.00"); these need to be fixed for readability.
  2. [Section 3.2, Appendix C] The values of theta_m, theta_d, the spatial margin, the depth-difference margin, and the near-distance threshold are never reported, although they are free parameters of the method. Please list them and include a sensitivity analysis for these parameters, not only for tau_l and tau_h.
  3. [Appendix D] The evaluation protocol excludes samples that cannot be scored by GPT-4o from the denominator. Please report the number of unscored samples for each dataset, since with small benchmarks this exclusion can bias the reported accuracy.
  4. [Section 4.5] The summary statistics in the text (94.85% three-way accuracy, 81.76% Macro-F1, 95.47% decisive accuracy, 91.07% coverage) do not match simple averages of the two rows in Table 6; please clarify how these aggregates are computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core accuracy claim is measured against external benchmarks, and the self-referential SEF metric is supported by human validation; the only circularity-adjacent features are non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an average accuracy gain of 68.94% over external benchmarks (Table 2), evaluated with fixed protocols and compared against independent baselines. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: thresholds (tau_h=0.75, tau_l=0.45) are stated constants, and the sensitivity analysis on a fixed subset is a robustness check, not a fitted input. The verification pipeline uses external tools (Grounding DINO, SAM2, Depth Anything V2) and a borrowed existence score from FaithAct; none of these are defined in terms of the target results. The self-citations (Chen et al. 2026b; Liu et al. 2024b) appear only in motivational passages about MLLM perceptual limitations, not as load-bearing premises in the derivation of the method or its measured gains. The SEF metric is computed from the paper's own verifier labels, so the observed SEF improvement is partly by construction (correction directly flips contradicted units to supported), but this is not the paper's primary evidence: final-answer accuracy is external, and the verifier is human-validated on 291 units (Table 6). The monocular-depth-ordering-as-ground-truth concern raised in the skeptic analysis is a correctness/robustness risk about the reliability gate, not a circularity: the method could be wrong on some depth corrections while still being non-circular. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own inputs, and no self-citation chain forces the result.

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

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. SEG and SERA are computational structures, not entities with independent empirical handles.

free parameters (5)
  • Reliability thresholds tau_h and tau_l = tau_h=0.75, tau_l=0.45
    Tier boundaries for HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW evidence reliability. Chosen in Section 3.2 and validated on a fixed 100-sample RealWorldQA subset (Table 5), where default outperforms loose and strict settings.
  • Reliability weights alpha, beta, gamma = not reported
    Weighted geometric mean exponents in g(o), Section 3.2; values are not disclosed yet they control how much each evidence component contributes.
  • Mask area threshold theta_m and depth variance threshold theta_d = not reported
    Define amask and dstable in Section 3.2; the sigmoid parameters are fixed in implementation but never given.
  • Spatial and depth margins = not reported
    Fixed margins to avoid decisive judgments when centers or depths are nearly equal, Section C.1; their exact values are not provided.
  • Near-distance threshold = not reported
    Fixed threshold for the near relation on normalized 2D distance, Section C.1; exact value not provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bounding-box centers are valid proxies for left/right and above/below relations once a fixed margin is applied.
    Section C.1 defines oi left_of oj iff xc(oi) < xc(oj), etc. This ignores object extent, orientation, and occlusion; reliability scores do not directly measure errors in this proxy.
  • domain assumption Monocular depth, after reversing inverse-depth ordering and reliability gating, gives correct closer/farther orderings.
    Section C.1 defines closer_than via mask-based depth statistic z(o); Depth Anything V2 is a monocular estimator and its relative order can fail on nearby objects.
  • ad hoc to paper The earliest reliably contradicted evidence unit is the right intervention point and later contradictions need not be corrected independently.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix C.2 select s* = argmin k_m over contradicted units; no experiment compares this to correcting all contradicted units, so the heuristic is untested.
  • domain assumption The extraction prompt captures all spatial evidence that matters.
    The Limitations section states implicit or omitted spatial errors cannot be localized; the method's correctness therefore depends on the extractor's recall, which is estimated only on small human-annotated samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trace, Verify, and Correct: A Training-Free Framework for Spatial Reasoning in Multimodal LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6S7TCXV

@misc{pith2026260804759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trace, Verify, and Correct: A Training-Free Framework for Spatial Reasoning in Multimodal LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6S7TCXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04759}
}
read the original abstract

Although Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made substantial progress, their spatial reasoning may still produce intermediate judgments inconsistent with the input image, allowing errors to propagate through the reasoning chain and affect the final answer. Existing methods mainly improve spatial reasoning through training or additional spatial information, without considering whether the reasoning process itself is faithful to the model input. Our study shows that unfaithful reasoning chains significantly reduce final-answer accuracy. To address this issue, we propose a modular and training-free framework for spatial reasoning verification and correction. The framework constructs a Spatial Evidence Graph (SEG), which associates atomic spatial evidence extracted from Chain-of-Thought reasoning with visual entities, spatial relations, source steps, and visual evidence. Spatial Evidence Reliability Assessment (SERA) evaluates the reliability of visual evidence based on object existence, localization, and geometric measurements. The framework then identifies the earliest spatial evidence unit contradicted by reliable visual evidence and guides the original MLLM to revise the subsequent reasoning and final answer. Across 15 model-dataset settings, our method achieves an average accuracy of 68.94%, outperforming the compared baselines by 8.55 percentage points on average. Our code will be open-sourced.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation for perceptually faithful spatial rea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of generic Self-Revision on the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of our process-oriented spatial reasoning correction framework. SEG structures intermediate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative spatial evidence faithfulness on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fine-grained ablation of SERA on a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transfer analysis on ScienceQA and Math [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  2. [2]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  3. [3]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    arXiv 1981

  4. [4]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  5. [5]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  7. [7]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

  8. [8]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume=

    Natural language understanding and inference with mllm in visual question answering: A survey , author=. ACM Computing Surveys , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Focus: Internal mllm representations for efficient fine-grained visual question answering , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08758 , year=

    M3CoTBench: Benchmark Chain-of-Thought of MLLMs in Medical Image Understanding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08758 , year=

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Mmiu: Multimodal multi-image understanding for evaluating large vision-language models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04486 , year=

    Beyond Unimodal Shortcuts: MLLMs as Cross-Modal Reasoners for Grounded Named Entity Recognition , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04486 , year=

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Corvid: Improving multimodal large language models towards chain-of-thought reasoning , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11659 , year=

    The Llama 4 Herd: Architecture, Training, Evaluation, and Deployment Notes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11659 , year=

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.25979 , year=

    Llava-onevision-2: Towards next-generation perceptual intelligence , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.25979 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06266 , year=

    Spatial reasoning with vision-language models in ego-centric multi-view scenes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06266 , year=

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16561 , year=

    N3D-VLM: Native 3D Grounding Enables Accurate Spatial Reasoning in Vision-Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16561 , year=

  10. [18]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Mm-spatial: Exploring 3d spatial understanding in multimodal llms , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  11. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    From flatland to space: Teaching vision-language models to perceive and reason in 3d , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    STAR-R1: Multi-View Spatial TrAnsformation Reasoning by Reinforcing Multimodal LLMs , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  13. [21]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Spatialpin: Enhancing spatial reasoning capabilities of vision-language models through prompting and interacting 3d priors , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    ByDeWay: Boost Your multimodal LLM with DEpth prompting in a training-free Way , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  15. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Struct2d: A perception-guided framework for spatial reasoning in mllms , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16087 , year=

    See&trek: Training-free spatial prompting for multimodal large language model , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16087 , year=

  17. [25]

    Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Unleashing spatial reasoning in multimodal large language models via textual representation guided reasoning , author=. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07833 , year=

    SPD-Faith Bench: Diagnosing and Improving Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought for Multimodal Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07833 , year=

  19. [27]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 , pages=

    Faithful-First Reasoning, Planning, and Acting for Multimodal LLMs , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 , pages=

    2026

  20. [28]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  22. [30]

    ICRA 2025 Workshop: Human-Centered Robot Learning in the Era of Big Data and Large Models , year=

    Spatial-LLaVA: Enhancing Large Language Models with Spatial Referring Expressions for Visual Understanding , author=. ICRA 2025 Workshop: Human-Centered Robot Learning in the Era of Big Data and Large Models , year=

    2025

  23. [31]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Spare: Enhancing spatial reasoning in vision-language models with synthetic data , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441 , year=

    Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441 , year=

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06663 , year=

    Graph-of-mark: Promote spatial reasoning in multimodal language models with graph-based visual prompting , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06663 , year=

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11779 , year=

    Mllm can see? dynamic correction decoding for hallucination mitigation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11779 , year=

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Visual description grounding reduces hallucinations and boosts reasoning in lvlms , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Mm-verify: Enhancing multimodal reasoning with chain-of-thought verification , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00378 , year=

    CoRGI: Verified Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Post-hoc Visual Grounding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00378 , year=

  30. [38]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Visual instruction tuning , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  31. [39]

    Grok-1.5 vision preview , author=

  32. [40]

    Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    2023

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  34. [42]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    2024

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 , year=

    Qwen3-vl technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 , year=

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency , author=

    Internvl3. 5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , year=

    Gpt-4o system card , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , year=

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  40. [48]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Mathvista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  41. [49]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  42. [50]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  43. [51]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Depth anything v2 , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07809 , year=

    Invisible to Humans, Triggered by Agents: Stealthy Jailbreak Attacks on Mobile Vision-Language Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07809 , year=

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Red teaming large reasoning models , author=. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  46. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01618 , year=

    Tex3D: Objects as attack surfaces via adversarial 3D textures for vision-language-action models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01618 , year=

  47. [55]

    Proceedings of the 32nd ACM international conference on multimedia , pages=

    Exploring the robustness of decision-level through adversarial attacks on llm-based embodied models , author=. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM international conference on multimedia , pages=

  48. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13026 , year=

    Revisor: Beyond textual reflection, towards multimodal introspective reasoning in long-form video understanding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13026 , year=

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.