Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Exploring the Implicit Semantic Ability of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Pilot Study on Entity Set Expansion

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LUSAR, a listwise sampling-and-ranking method, significantly improves multimodal large language models on entity set expansion by converting local list rankings into a global score per candidate.

desk verdict A plausible listwise ranking method for multimodal entity set expansion, but the reported gains are confounded with GPT-4 SFT and the missing pointwise control prevents attribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00330 v1 pith:RAAQKNW3 submitted 2024-12-31 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Hebin Wang , Yangning Li , Yinghui Li , Hai-Tao Zheng , Wenhao Jiang , Hong-Gee Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords entitysetexpansionmultimodallargelanguagemodelslistwiserankingimplicitsemanticreasoningLUSARMESEDconstraineddecodinglow-rankadaptation
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

Generative multimodal large language models can expand a handful of seed entities into their hidden semantic class—solving the Multi-modal Entity Set Expansion task—if the model is asked to rank small candidate lists instead of assigning absolute scores. The paper proposes LUSAR, a listwise sampling-and-ranking method: it samples many short candidate lists, has the MLLM rank each list, and aggregates the local ranks into one global score per entity. On the MESED benchmark, LUSAR lifts Qwen-VL-Chat from 52.07 to 68.45 MAP@10 and lets Qwen2-VL-7b reach 82.15 MAP@10, with consistent gains across precision-at-k metrics. This matters because it is the first demonstration that a generative MLLM, not just retrieval-based models, can do entity set expansion, and it suggests a general recipe for eliciting implicit semantic knowledge from large models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is LUSAR (Listwise Multimodal Sampling And Ranking), a two-stage pipeline. Stage one generates candidate entities with prefix-constrained beam search, so the model only emits tokens that complete valid entities from the vocabulary. Stage two builds $M = o \cdot |\text{candidates}| / n$ random lists of $n=5$ candidates, each appearing $o=10$ times, prompts the MLLM to rank the list by its relevance to the seed class, and aggregates the results with the position-weighted scoring rule $\operatorname{score}_{e_k} = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \sum_{i=1}^{n} i \cdot \mathbb{I}_{e_k = r_{mi}}$. A low-rank (LoRA) fine-tune on GPT-4-generated ranking data, mixed with LLaVA-Instruct-150K to preserve general abilities, teaches the model the output format and sharpens its discrimination between true positives and distractors. The identity that carries the argument is that a short list's local rank, aggregated over many random lists, approximates the entity's global rank in the full candidate set.

What would settle it

Fine-tune the same MLLM on the same GPT-4 ranking data but replace the listwise prompt with a pointwise prompt that asks for an absolute relevance score per candidate; if MAP@10 on MESED does not drop below LUSAR's, then the listwise sampling and aggregation are not the source of the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that listwise comparison, not absolute scoring, is what unlocks implicit semantic reasoning in multimodal large language models for entity set expansion. Its LUSAR pipeline first uses prefix-constrained beam search over an entity vocabulary to generate a candidate set, then repeatedly samples five candidates at a time (each entity appears in ten lists), asks the MLLM to rank each list by relevance to the seed set, and converts the local ranks into a global score via $\operatorname{score}_{e_k} = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \sum_{i=1}^{n} i \cdot \mathbb{I}_{e_k = r_{mi}}$. The ranked candidates are then used directly for evaluation on the MESED benchmark, where fine-grained classes and hard negative entities make the task genuinely difficult for models that rely on explicit prompts. The authors report that this approach outperforms pointwise MLLM scoring by large margins, and rivals or exceeds specialized ESE baselines, marking the first use of a generative MLLM for entity set expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a few randomly assembled five-item lists, with each candidate appearing ten times, produce aggregate scores that faithfully reproduce the entity's true rank in the whole candidate set—and that the beam-search candidate generator has already found every entity that belongs to the target class.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generative MLLMs become a viable tool for entity set expansion without corpus statistics or context-feature engineering, as long as the task is framed as ranking small lists.
  • The listwise sampling-and-aggregation recipe is portable: any LLM that can compare a handful of items can be turned into a global ranker over a large candidate set.
  • Multimodal inputs (images) contribute to disambiguation of synonyms, polysemy, and hard negatives, so the method's gains are largest when each entity has a representative image.
  • The operating point $n=5$, $o=10$ is reported as optimal on MESED, implying that listwise aggregation has tunable sample-complexity parameters that practitioners can adjust per task.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported gains are not cleanly attributed to the listwise mechanism alone, because the model is also fine-tuned on GPT-4-generated ranking data; an ablation that trains on the same data with a pointwise prompt would separate the two effects.
  • Because the candidate set comes from beam search, the method's ceiling is set by the first stage: any true positive that the generator never emits can never be recovered by ranking.
  • The same score-aggregation rule could be applied to any few-exemplar ranking task—recommendation, retrieval re-ranking, or taxonomy expansion—where the model cannot see all candidates in one context.
  • The paper's probabilistic justification for uniform sampling is heuristic; deriving a sample-complexity bound for how many lists are needed to recover a global order with high probability would make the method's reliability predictable.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LUSAR, a two-stage method for multimodal entity set expansion (MESE) with generative multimodal large language models. In the first stage, a prefix-constrained beam search makes the model generate candidate entities from a fixed vocabulary. In the second stage, candidate entities are repeatedly sampled into short lists and ranked by the MLLM; the ranks are aggregated by Eq. (3) into a global score for every candidate. The model is fine-tuned with LoRA on roughly 4,000 GPT-4-generated ranking lists. Experiments on the MESED benchmark report that LUSAR improves over text-based, vision-based, and generative MLLM baselines on MAP@K and P@K, with the best results for Qwen2-VL-7b. The paper claims that this is the first use of generative MLLMs for ESE and that listwise ranking unlocks implicit semantic reasoning in MLLMs.

Significance. If the reported gains are caused by the listwise sampling-and-ranking mechanism, LUSAR is a useful methodological contribution: it extends listwise ranking beyond retrieval-style tasks to entity-level semantic judgment in MLLMs, and it provides a concrete probe for studying implicit semantic inference. The paper's strengths are that it evaluates against several established baselines, uses a public benchmark (MESED), and reports standard metrics at multiple cutoffs. The main weakness is attribution: the headline comparison conflates the listwise mechanism with supervised fine-tuning on GPT-4 data, and no code or data release is mentioned, so the contribution is not yet fully reproducible. The ablation of o and n is informative but incomplete without a described model-selection protocol.

major comments (5)
  1. [III.C and Table I] The main comparison in Table I is between LUSAR, which includes LoRA SFT on roughly 4,000 GPT-4-generated ranking lists (Section II.B.3), and raw generative MLLM baselines, including the single-MLLM absolute scoring baseline of Section III.C. The latter is the only non-listwise generative contrast, but the paper gives no indication that it received the same SFT. Consequently, the observed gains could be due to SFT, prompt formatting, or LoRA adaptation rather than to the listwise sampling and aggregation mechanism. Please add a pointwise scoring baseline that is fine-tuned with the same SFT data and a non-listwise SFT baseline for Qwen2-VL-7b.
  2. [III.E] The choices o=10 and n=5 are described as 'best' but the paper does not state whether these were selected on a held-out validation split or on the test queries. If selection used test queries, the reported gains include selection bias. Specify the selection procedure and, if possible, report performance across the sweep rather than only the best point.
  3. [II.B.2, Eq. (3)] The claim that uniform random sampling lets local list ranks reflect global ranking is informal. No formal representativeness condition, sample-size bound, or variance analysis is given, and with n=5 and o=10 it is not obvious that aggregate scores are stable. Provide a formal statement or an empirical stability analysis.
  4. [II.A] The prefix-constrained beam search must generate every true positive entity in Step 1; any positive entity absent from the candidate set is unrecoverable. The paper gives no analysis of recall of this candidate generation stage. Report the recall of the candidate set with respect to ground-truth positives, or justify the beam size.
  5. [Table I] The Deepseek-VL-7b generative baseline row reports P@10, P@20, P@50, and P@100 values (86.60, 79.15, 68.03, 61.12) identical to the ALBEF row. This likely indicates a copying error and undermines confidence in the baseline table; please correct and verify all baseline numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos and grammatical errors, e.g., 'we applies' should be 'we apply' and 'can serves' should be 'can serve'; please proofread.
  2. [II.A] The text contains misspellings and encoding issues, such as 'patial', 'canditate', and '¡EOS¿'; these should be cleaned before publication.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 shows 'Llama 7b' in Step 1, but the experiments use Qwen-VL-Chat, Qwen2-VL-7b, and Deepseek-VL-7b; please make the figure consistent with the actual backbone models.
  4. [II.B.2, Eq. (3)] The variable M is used in Eq. (3) before its definition, which appears only in the following sentence; reorder the text so M is defined before the equation.
  5. [III.A] The dataset section does not state the candidate vocabulary size or the number of candidate entities per query; adding these statistics would help readers assess the difficulty of the ranking problem.
  6. [IV] The conclusion contains a duplicated period and it repeats the introduction's claim about being 'the first to apply LLMs to the ESE task'; please reconcile this with the generative MLLM baselines listed in Section III.B, which are also LLM-based.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (3) aggregation and GPT-4 SFT are independent of the MESED evaluation; overlapping benchmark authorship and o/n tuning are caveats, not definitional circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level that matters for circularity. Step 1 generates candidates by prefix-constrained beam search; Step 2 samples lists and computes scores with Eq. (3), where score_e = sum_i i * I(e = r_mi). This is a well-defined aggregation of observed LLM rankings, not an expression that equals its input by construction. The SFT data in Section II.B.3 is generated by GPT-4 (approximately 4,000 entries) rather than extracted from the MESED test labels, so the fine-tuning does not encode the evaluation target by definition. The main results in Table I compare LUSAR against external baselines (SetExpan, CGExpan, ProbExpan, CLIP, ALBEF, Qwen-VL-Chat, Deepseek-VL) on the fixed MESED benchmark, so the method's ranking is not forced by the evaluation procedure. The benchmark MESED is cited from overlapping authors ([18]), but it is a fixed public dataset with manual calibration, and the cited result is not a theorem whose content is the present paper's claim; it therefore does not function as a load-bearing self-citation. Likewise, the choice of o=10 and n=5 in Section III.E is a hyperparameter selection made on the same benchmark, which is a fitting/selection caveat that could inflate reported performance; however, it is not a definitional identity because the aggregated scores are not determined by o and n alone. Potential confounds identified in the experimental design (no pointwise SFT baseline, representativeness assumption for sampling) are correctness risks rather than circularity. Therefore no enumerated circularity pattern is instantiated with the required quote-and-reduction evidence.

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

The central claim rests on the representativeness of random list sampling, the recall of the constrained candidate generator, the correctness of GPT-4-generated SFT labels, and the MESED benchmark labels. The free parameters o, n, candidate set size, beam size, and LoRA settings are chosen without full disclosure, and o and n are tuned on the test benchmark.

free parameters (5)
  • occurrence count o = 10
    Number of sampled lists each candidate appears in; tuned by ablation on the MESED test set (Section III.E).
  • list length n = 5
    Number of candidate entities ranked per query; tuned by ablation on the MESED test set (Section III.E).
  • candidate set size = 200 (from Figure 1)
    Number of candidate entities generated in Step 1; not stated in text and affects the recall ceiling for expansion.
  • beam size for prefix-constrained beam search = Not specified
    Number of beams in candidate generation; not reported.
  • LoRA rank and SFT data mix ratio = Not specified
    Fine-tuning hyperparameters and the proportion of LLaVA-Instruct-150K mixed into SFT data are not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Uniform random sampling of lists of length n from the candidate set with occurrence o yields scores that represent the global ranking (Section II.B.2).
    The method's score aggregation in Eq 3 is only valid if sampled lists are statistically representative of the whole candidate population; the paper invokes probability theory without formal conditions.
  • domain assumption The candidate entities generated by prefix-constrained beam search contain the true positive entities needed for expansion.
    If a positive entity is never generated in Step 1, no ranking method can retrieve it; recall of the candidate generator is not evaluated.
  • domain assumption GPT-4-generated SFT labels (ranking positions) are correct ground truth.
    SFT data is generated by GPT-4 with distractor entities, but the paper does not report human validation or agreement with MESED labels.
  • domain assumption MESED benchmark labels are accurate ground truth.
    The benchmark is cited as having meticulous manual calibration (ref 18); the paper relies on it for all metrics without external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Implicit Semantic Ability of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Pilot Study on Entity Set Expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RAAQKNW3

@misc{pith2026250100330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Implicit Semantic Ability of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Pilot Study on Entity Set Expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RAAQKNW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00330}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid development of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has brought significant improvements to a wide range of tasks in real-world applications. However, LLMs still exhibit certain limitations in extracting implicit semantic information. In this paper, we apply MLLMs to the Multi-modal Entity Set Expansion (MESE) task, which aims to expand a handful of seed entities with new entities belonging to the same semantic class, and multi-modal information is provided with each entity. We explore the capabilities of MLLMs to understand implicit semantic information at the entity-level granularity through the MESE task, introducing a listwise ranking method LUSAR that maps local scores to global rankings. Our LUSAR demonstrates significant improvements in MLLM's performance on the MESE task, marking the first use of generative MLLM for ESE tasks and extending the applicability of listwise ranking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall framework of our LUSAR. A. Candidates Entities Sample We employ a generative framework with constrained de￾coding strategy to the large language model, generating a certain number of candidate entities for the initial step of entity filtering. Instead of relying on the intermediate semantic features of entities as traditional models do, we adopt a generative method to accomplish entity set expansion. To ensu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis of varying entity occurrences and sample sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Correct like humans: Progressive learning framework for chinese text error correction,

    Y . Li, S. Ma, S. Chen, H. Huang, S. Huang, Y . Li, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “Correct like humans: Progressive learning framework for chinese text error correction,” Expert Systems with Applications , p. 126039, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Alternating language modeling for cross-lingual pre-training,

    J. Yang, S. Ma, D. Zhang, S. Wu, Z. Li, and M. Zhou, “Alternating language modeling for cross-lingual pre-training,” in The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty- Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intellig...

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v3 2020

  3. [3]

    The Past Mistake is the Future Wisdom: Error-driven Contrastive Probability Optimization for Chinese Spell Checking

    Y . Li, Q. Zhou, Y . Li, Z. Li, R. Liu, R. Sun, Z. Wang, C. Li, Y . Cao, and H.-T. Zheng, “The past mistake is the future wisdom: Error-driven contrastive probability optimization for chinese spell checking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00991, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    CLEME: Debiasing Multi-reference Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction

    J. Ye, Y . Li, Q. Zhou, Y . Li, S. Ma, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “Cleme: debiasing multi-reference evaluation for grammatical error correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10819 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Learning from the Dictionary: Heterogeneous Knowledge Guided Fine-tuning for Chinese Spell Checking

    Y . Li, S. Ma, Q. Zhou, Z. Li, L. Yangning, S. Huang, R. Liu, C. Li, Y . Cao, and H. Zheng, “Learning from the dictionary: Heterogeneous knowledge guided fine-tuning for chinese spell checking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10320, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Linguistic Rules-Based Corpus Generation for Native Chinese Grammatical Error Correction

    S. Ma, Y . Li, R. Sun, Q. Zhou, S. Huang, D. Zhang, L. Yangning, R. Liu, Z. Li, Y . Caoet al., “Linguistic rules-based corpus generation for native chinese grammatical error correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10442, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Execrepobench: Multi-level executable code completion evaluation,

    J. Yang, J. Zhang, J. Yang, K. Jin, L. Zhang, Q. Peng, K. Deng, Y . Miao, T. Liu, Z. Cui et al., “Execrepobench: Multi-level executable code completion evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11990 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Evaluating and aligning codellms on human preference,

    J. Yang, J. Yang, K. Jin, Y . Miao, L. Zhang, L. Yang, Z. Cui, Y . Zhang, B. Hui, and J. Lin, “Evaluating and aligning codellms on human preference,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05210 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    When llms meet cunning texts: A fallacy understanding benchmark for large language models,

    Y . Li, Q. Zhou, Y . Luo, S. Ma, Y . Li, H.-T. Zheng, X. Hu, and S. Y . Philip, “When llms meet cunning texts: A fallacy understanding benchmark for large language models,” in The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Rethinking the roles of large language models in chinese grammatical error correction,

    Y . Li, S. Qin, H. Huang, Y . Li, L. Qin, X. Hu, W. Jiang, H.-T. Zheng, and P. S. Yu, “Rethinking the roles of large language models in chinese grammatical error correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11420 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Llms assist nlp researchers: Critique paper (meta-) reviewing,

    J. Du, Y . Wang, W. Zhao, Z. Deng, S. Liu, R. Lou, H. P. Zou, P. N. Venkit, N. Zhang, M. Srinathet al., “Llms assist nlp researchers: Critique paper (meta-) reviewing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16253 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lateval: An interactive llms evaluation benchmark with incomplete information from lateral thinking puzzles,

    S. Huang, S. Ma, Y . Li, M. Huang, W. Zou, W. Zhang, and H.- T. Zheng, “Lateval: An interactive llms evaluation benchmark with incomplete information from lateral thinking puzzles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10855, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    On the (in) effectiveness of large language models for chinese text correction,

    Y . Li, H. Huang, S. Ma, Y . Jiang, Y . Li, F. Zhou, H.-T. Zheng, and Q. Zhou, “On the (in) effectiveness of large language models for chinese text correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09007 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Active relation discovery: Towards general and label-aware open relation extraction,

    Y . Li, Y . Li, X. Chen, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “Active relation discovery: Towards general and label-aware open relation extraction,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 282, p. 111094, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Are we ready for a new paradigm shift? a survey on visual deep mlp,

    R. Liu, Y . Li, L. Tao, D. Liang, and H.-T. Zheng, “Are we ready for a new paradigm shift? a survey on visual deep mlp,” Patterns, vol. 3, no. 7, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Towards real-world writing assistance: A chinese character checking benchmark with faked and misspelled characters,

    Y . Li, Z. Xu, S. Chen, H. Huang, Y . Li, Y . Jiang, Z. Li, Q. Zhou, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “Towards real-world writing assistance: A chinese character checking benchmark with faked and misspelled characters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11268 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ecomgpt: Instruction-tuning large language models with chain-of-task tasks for e-commerce,

    Y . Li, S. Ma, X. Wang, S. Huang, C. Jiang, H.-T. Zheng, P. Xie, F. Huang, and Y . Jiang, “Ecomgpt: Instruction-tuning large language models with chain-of-task tasks for e-commerce,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 17, 2024, pp. ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Mesed: A multi-modal entity set expansion dataset with fine-grained semantic classes and hard negative entities,

    Y . Li, T. Lu, H.-T. Zheng, Y . Li, S. Huang, T. Yu, J. Yuan, and R. Zhang, “Mesed: A multi-modal entity set expansion dataset with fine-grained semantic classes and hard negative entities,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 8, 202...

    2024

  11. [19]

    From retrieval to generation: Efficient and effective entity set expansion,

    S. Huang, S. Ma, Y . Li, Y . Li, Y . Jiang, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “From retrieval to generation: Efficient and effective entity set expansion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03531, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Automatic context pattern generation for entity set expansion,

    Y . Li, S. Huang, X. Zhang, Q. Zhou, Y . Li, R. Liu, Y . Cao, H.-T. Zheng, and Y . Shen, “Automatic context pattern generation for entity set expansion,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 12 458–12 469, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm,

    F. Xia, T.-Y . Liu, J. Wang, W. Zhang, and H. Li, “Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm,” in Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning , 2008, pp. 1192–1199

    2008

  14. [22]

    Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach,

    Z. Cao, T. Qin, T.-Y . Liu, M.-F. Tsai, and H. Li, “Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach,” in Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning , 2007, pp. 129–136

    2007

  15. [23]

    Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks,

    I. Sutskever, “Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    From retrieval to gen- eration: Efficient and effective entity set expansion,

    S. Huang, S. Ma, Y . Li, Y . Li, and H.-T. Zheng, “From retrieval to gen- eration: Efficient and effective entity set expansion,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2024, pp. 921–931

    2024

  17. [25]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306

    2024

  19. [27]

    Setexpan: Corpus- based set expansion via context feature selection and rank ensemble,

    J. Shen, Z. Wu, D. Lei, J. Shang, X. Ren, and J. Han, “Setexpan: Corpus- based set expansion via context feature selection and rank ensemble,” in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2017, Skopje, Macedonia, September 18–22, 201...

    2017

  20. [28]

    Empower entity set expansion via language model probing,

    Y . Zhang, J. Shen, J. Shang, and J. Han, “Empower entity set expansion via language model probing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13897 , 2020

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Contrastive learning with hard negative entities for entity set expansion,

    Y . Li, Y . Li, Y . He, T. Yu, Y . Shen, and H.-T. Zheng, “Contrastive learning with hard negative entities for entity set expansion,” in Pro- ceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 1077–1086

    2022

  22. [30]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  23. [31]

    Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation,

    J. Li, R. Selvaraju, A. Gotmare, S. Joty, C. Xiong, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 9694–9705, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Qwen technical report,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Deepseek-vl: towards real-world vision-language understanding,

    H. Lu, W. Liu, B. Zhang, B. Wang, K. Dong, B. Liu, J. Sun, T. Ren, Z. Li, Y . Sun et al. , “Deepseek-vl: towards real-world vision-language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Qwen2 technical report,

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Zhou, C. Li, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen2 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.