arXiv:2606. 31407v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models can produce confident answers on visually ambiguous inputs, resulting in biased predictions.
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:2605.27136v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) remains a critical challenge in Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) for reliable predictions and real-world deploy...
arXiv:2605.02035v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Ambiguity resolution is a key challenge in multimodal machine translation (MMT), where models must genuinely leverage visual input to map an...
Modern text-to-image models excel in visual fidelity and prompt adherence. However, this strict adherence comes at the cost of diversity: generated samples tend to collapse into a single visual interpretation.
arXiv:2602.06652v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions r...
arXiv:2606. 06890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently rely on language priors, producing confident answers that are weakly grounded in visual evidence.
The paper argues that stochastic decoding, common in large language models, is not ideal for Visual Question Answering (VQA) because VQA is a closed‑ended task with head‑heavy answer distributions and epistemic uncertainty. The authors formalize how model calibration relates to predictive accuracy and identify conditions under which greedy decoding is optimal. Experiments across multiple benchmarks show greedy decoding outperforms stochastic sampling, and a new Greedy Decoding for Reasoning Models further improves multimodal reasoning performance.