The paper explores soft prompting for few‑shot object detection with vision‑language models, showing that optimizing a small number of continuous prompt tokens—especially when placed at the cross‑modal boundary and initialized from an empty space token—can match LoRA performance while training far fewer parameters. Soft prompting also avoids catastrophic forgetting, transfers to newer models, and can be verbalized into readable prompts. The study extends these findings to manipulation tasks, indicating that VLMs already contain much of the necessary knowledge for specialized domains, and the main challenge is learning how to ask for it.
arXiv:2606. 12299v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models provide a natural language interface to robot control, but the mapping from language to behavior is often brittle and unintuitive: semantically similar instructions can induce drastically different behaviors, while some capabilities may not be elicitable through prompting alone.
arXiv:2601. 03309v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, which integrate pretrained large Vision-Language Models (VLM) into their policy backbone, are gaining significant attention for their promising generalization capabilities.
arXiv:2607. 28967v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt tuning adapts vision--language models with few trainable parameters, but existing approaches trade off efficiency and adaptation: static textual prompts can overfit source classes, image-conditioned prompts add per-instance computation, and multimodal tuning modifies the visual branch.
arXiv:2511. 16107v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Visual in-context learning (VICL) solves visual tasks by conditioning on a few input-output demonstrations without any model training.
arXiv:2608. 11739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The prevailing recipe for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models couples a pretrained VLM with a separately trained flow-matching action expert.
arXiv:2606. 14703v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How a vision-language model internally solves the task of describing an image is far from obvious.
arXiv:2606. 19297v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are typically obtained by fine-tuning powerful pretrained VLMs on robotics data, yet it is unclear how much commonsense and factual knowledge they retain after adaptation.
arXiv:2606. 30185v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Improving vision-language models (VLMs) on visual reasoning typically requires retraining or hand-designed prompts and tools.
arXiv:2608.30705v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with fine-grained Visual Search, the task of locating small or rare objects in high-resolution images...
arXiv:2606. 02735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generalization remains a central bottleneck for vision-language-action (VLA) models: under distractors, appearance shifts, and semantically similar tasks, the policy must often infer local execution details from coarse instructions while also deciding which parts of the image matter for control.
Embodied Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are typically obtained by fine-tuning powerful pretrained VLMs on robotics data, yet it is unclear how much commonsense and factual knowledge they retain after adaptation. Failures on knowledge-sensitive tasks are ambiguous, conflating missing knowledge with poor generalization of low-level control.
The paper investigates why vision‑language models like LLaVA‑1.5‑7B hallucinate objects in captions and proposes a targeted fix. By ranking attention heads whose image attention drops around hallucinated words, the authors identify 32 key heads and apply a head‑sliced LoRA adapter plus an inference‑time grounding controller. On COCO images, this combined method reduces hallucinated captions from 37% to 23% and hallucinated object mentions from 15.6% to 9.6%, while also lowering object recall.