arXiv:2603. 09715v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Visual instruction tuning is crucial for improving vision-language large models (VLLMs).
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:2604. 01280v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) requires Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to identify and combine fine-grained visual cues with retrieved textual evidence.
arXiv:2608. 01664v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present our ImageCLEF 2026 Multimodal Reasoning system for the Visual Multiple Choice Question Answering (Visual MCQ) and Visual Open Question Answering (Visual OpenQA) subtasks.
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...
arXiv:2603. 01195v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The effectiveness of multimodal instruction tuning depends not only on dataset scale, but critically on whether training samples genuinely require visual reasoning.
LiteMedCoT-VL is a parameter‑efficient pipeline that transfers chain‑of‑thought reasoning from a 235B teacher model to a 2B student model using LoRA fine‑tuning on explanation‑enriched data. The approach enables a compact vision‑language model to perform medical visual question answering without relying on image captions, achieving 64.9% accuracy on the PMC‑VQA benchmark—an 11‑point improvement over the zero‑shot Qwen3‑VL‑4B baseline. Visual grounding analysis confirms that the model bases its predictions on image content rather than textual priors.
The paper introduces a free, label‑free visual evidence signal that improves fine‑grained vision‑language reasoning. By selecting image crops that maximize the model’s answer distribution peak, the method locates answer‑bearing regions without training or annotations, boosting accuracy from 70 % to 85 %. The evidence gap also complements model confidence, enabling better correctness prediction and error flagging.