arXiv:2308. 06035v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans routinely draw on visual context to predict upcoming words.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.05517v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human observers prioritize visual information according to task goals. Most computational models of naturalistic viewing are gaze-trained for free vi...
arXiv:2606. 31054v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are critically hampered by hallucination, generating content inconsistent with the provided image.
arXiv:2607. 16214v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Image descriptions represented with language models (LMs) predict human brain responses to naturalistic images in high-level visual regions, but the factors driving this predictivity remain unclear.
arXiv:2605. 18160v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress, primarily attributed to effective paradigms for integrating visual and textual information.
The study compares human and vision‑language model (VLM) responses to cross‑modal association tasks, using identical stimuli (a pseudo‑word and two images) and recording both choices and eye movements. While larger VLMs show some alignment with human choices, their attention patterns correlate poorly with human gaze, performing no better than a simple center‑bias baseline. Fine‑tuning VLMs on human choices improves choice alignment but not attention alignment, and training on human gaze improves attention correlation without affecting choice accuracy.
The paper investigates whether layer-wise visual‑text similarity in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) truly reflects content‑level cross‑modal interaction. By injecting Gaussian noise into the visual stream of 13 MLLMs, the authors show that task accuracy drops sharply while traditional scalar alignment metrics (CKA, SVCCA, MIR, principal‑angle cosine) fail to distinguish corrupted from clean inputs, a phenomenon they term the alignment illusion. They propose the principal‑angle gap (PA gap) as a more reliable geometric diagnostic that correlates better with task performance and reveals when internal geometry diverges from accuracy.