arXiv Computer Vision
Deeply Interleaved Text-Image Contexts for Multimodal LLMs Assessment
Read the original on arXiv Computer Vision →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 26
What We are Missing in Multimodal LLM Evaluation?
arXiv:2606. 26348v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.
arXiv AI
Aug 21
A Model-Internal Protocol for Assessing Multimodal Models as Integrated Systems
arXiv:2608. 11907v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Vision-Language Models increasingly aim to integrate visual generation and understanding within a single parameter space, evaluating such structural unification in a cohesive manner remains a critical challenge.
arXiv AI
Aug 13
Do You See What You Draw? A Semantic Closed-Loop Framework for Holistic Evaluation of Unified Multimodal Models
arXiv:2608. 11907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Vision-Language Models increasingly aim to integrate visual generation and understanding within a single parameter space, evaluating such structural unification in a cohesive manner remains a critical challenge.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
TGIF: Text-Guided Layer Fusion Mitigates Hallucination in Multimodal LLMs
arXiv:2601. 03100v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) typically rely on a single late-layer feature from a frozen vision encoder, leaving the encoder's rich hierarchy of visual cues under-utilized.
arXiv Computer Vision
3d ago
FreeFuse: Multi-Subject LoRA Fusion via Adaptive Token-Level Routing at Test Time
arXiv:2510.23515v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper proposes FreeFuse, a training-free framework for multi-subject text-to-image generation through automatic fusion of multiple subject LoR...
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 27
Seeing or Knowing? Visual Context Sensitivity in Multimodal Large Language Models
The paper investigates why multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with vision‑centric tasks when visual evidence conflicts with pretrained language knowledge. Using image reconstruction and a new WhatIfVis benchmark, the authors show that MLLMs preserve coarse‑grained visual attributes but fail to consistently use them, and that supervised fine‑tuning and activation patching can improve controllability of visual context sensitivity. The study demonstrates that the main bottleneck lies in the models’ inability to reliably regulate their reliance on visual evidence rather than in visual perception itself.