arXiv:2605. 28215v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In-context learning (ICL) enables multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to classify images from a few labelled examples.
By Carmen Quiles-Ram\'irez, Leticia L. Rodr\'iguez, Nicol\'as Martorell, Natalia D\'iaz-Rodr\'iguez
arXiv:2508. 10971v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge graphs (KGs) can be enhanced through rule mining; however, the resulting logical rules are often difficult for humans to interpret due to their inherent complexity and the idiosyncratic labeling conventions of individual KGs.
By Nasim Shirvani-Mahdavi, Chengkai Li
arXiv:2608. 16259v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid progress of image generation models calls for AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors that are not only accurate but also explainable and reliable.
By Bowen Deng, Jiahui Zhan, Yikun Ji, Haozhen Yan, Jianfu Zhang
arXiv:2601. 21944v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The widespread adoption of deep learning models in computer vision has intensified concerns about interpretability.
By Konstantinos P. Panousis, Diego Marcos
NoteVQA is a new benchmark that collects 252 real‑life visual questions from the Chinese image‑sharing platform Xiaohongshu, covering 12 topics and 7 user intents. Each question is paired with a concise expert reference and a human‑audited interleaved answer that blends text and visual evidence. The study evaluates VLMs on short‑answer correctness and interleaved answer quality using a new AgenticInterleave framework and a 12‑dimensional IVR‑12 rubric, finding that even state‑of‑the‑art models achieve only about 53% accuracy and lag behind human references in content quality.
By Haonan Jiang, Guojian Zhan, Jiancong Xie, Shijun Wan, Dongiia Zhao, Cheng Chen, Yahui Liu, Yao Hu, Chuan Mu
arXiv:2511. 18121v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel on benchmarks, their processing paradigm differs from the human ability to integrate visual information.
By Ming Zhong, Yuanlei Wang, Liuzhou Zhang, Ruichuan An, Renrui Zhang, Hao Liang, Ming Lu, Ying Shen, Wentao Zhang
Self-improvement for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is typically driven by reward-based methods that provide only coarse scalar feedback. Distillation offers a richer alternative through dense token-level supervision, but in the visual domain it usually depends on privileged context constructed using external annotations and tools, or stronger models.
arXiv:2609.06245v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) perform strongly on general visual understanding tasks such as visual question answering, yet they often str...
By Yixin Wan, Tianle Zheng, Kai-Wei Chang
arXiv:2606. 29069v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Concept-based Explainable AI (C-XAI) seeks human-understandable explanations grounded in semantic concepts, yet validation is limited by the scarcity of fine-grained concept annotations.
By Darian Fern\'andez-Guti\'errez, Rafael Bello, Marilyn Bello, Natalia D\'iaz-Rodr\'iguez
arXiv:2608. 13570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Latent reasoning has emerged as a powerful alternative to text-based Chain-of-Thought (CoT), offering significant gains in computational efficiency by compressing verbose reasoning into compact embeddings.
By Dayuan Zhao, Shengcao Cao, Yu-Xiong Wang, Liang-Yan Gui
The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.
By Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, Ishan Gupta, Lars Olds, Claire Campbell, David Fagnan, Veli Balin, Rohan Gosain, Louis Garcia, Minsu Jang
arXiv:2606. 02578v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent multimodal large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning ability, yet their reliability as automated evaluators remains limited by a critical weakness: when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues, MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers.
By Seojeong Park, Jiho Choi, Junyong Kang, Seonho Lee, Jaeyo Shin, Hyunjung Shim