arXiv AI
Visual Abstention in Unified Multimodal Models
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago
Recursive Self-Improvement in Unified Multimodal Models
arXiv:2610.03002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Unified multimodal models (UMMs) understand and generate both text and images, which lets a model produce its own training data. Existing self-improvem...
arXiv AI
Aug 11
What to Edit Next: Visually Aligned Image-Editing Follow-Up Suggestions in Conversational Systems
arXiv:2608. 07565v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational assistants increasingly recommend follow-up edits to help users continue a task.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10
I Don't Miss You, but I Do: Self-Explanation Faithfulness of Modality Missingness in Vision-Language Models
The paper introduces an interventional protocol to assess how vision‑language models (VLMs) explain the impact of missing modalities on their predictions. By comparing the models’ self‑explanations with actual changes observed after restoring missing inputs, the study finds that VLMs routinely overstate the sufficiency of available evidence and underestimate the effect of adding back missing modalities. Across eight open‑weight VLMs and four tasks, the discrepancy between predicted and realized changes is substantial, revealing systematic mischaracterization of modality dependence.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
TECCI: Tricky Edits of Collected and Curated Images
arXiv:2606. 01213v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite tremendous recent progress, current text-guided image editing methods still struggle with many aspects of editing involving instruction following, minimally editing the source image, and ensuring high visual quality.
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 28
Aphanta: Diagnosing Task-Aligned Image-Edited Intermediates for Multimodal Reasoning
Aphanta is an automated framework that diagnoses how well image editors can produce task‑aligned visual intermediates for multimodal large language models (MLLMs). It evaluates three reasoning conditions—direct, editor‑generated, and idealized intermediate—to distinguish visual potential from practical editor performance across 20 tasks and various editor–MLLM pairs. The study finds that image editing benefits certain tasks like visual cue injection and grounding, but is less reliable for symbol‑sensitive or structural tasks, and demonstrates measurable performance gains with a Qwen pipeline.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 11
VisEditBench: Can Vision-Language Models Edit Visualization Code from Multimodal Feedback?
Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong capabilities in generating visualization code from textual or visual specifications. However, real-world visualization authoring is inherently iterative: users frequently revise existing visualizations to repair flawed charts or adapt them to desired styles.