Papers for

multimodal ai developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Tracing influence to merge experts in multimodal AI models

Tracing and Coordinating Cross-Layer Influence for Multimodal Model Merging

Abstract: Multimodal model merging aims to consolidate task experts into a single model that retains their complementary capabilities. Most unimodal model merging methods combine expert updates within individual layers, and multimodal approaches largely follow this design. However, an expert update changes the representations passed to subsequent layers, allowing its influence to propagate across depth and affect how visual and textual information interact. When visual and language updates are combined, later updates act on inputs already modified by earlier ones, coupling their effects. This poses two challenges: (1) how to characterize the multimodal influence of individual expert updates across depth, and (2) how to jointly combine expert updates based on their multimodal influence. To address these challenges, we propose TAC-Merge for tracing and coordinating cross-layer influence in multimodal model merging. It contains two modules, i.e., multimodal influence mapping (MIM) and coupled merge control (CMC). MIM constructs graphs of update effects and uses Ricci curvature together with expert predictions to define a shared fusion objective. CMC models interactions among coefficient adjustments and jointly optimizes regional weights to synthesize one shared model. Experiments across diverse multimodal tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of TAC-Merge in consolidating complementary expert capabilities and supporting generalization to unseen tasks.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Combining different AI experts into one model is tricky because changes in one part affect later parts, especially when mixing vision and language skills. The authors propose a method called TAC-Merge to track how each expert's changes spread across layers and work together better. Their approach uses special math tools to map these effects and finds the best way to merge experts while keeping their unique strengths. Tests show this method improves merged models' performance on various tasks, even new ones.
Open 2609.12897v1

Multimodal AI models overdescribe images compared to humans using culture

Calibrated Ambiguity in Multimodal Language Models: Humans reach for cultural references, while models describe the picture

Abstract: Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.

Fri 11 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
This paper looks at how people and AI systems describe images with clues in a game called Dixit. People naturally use hints that can be understood in different ways and often include cultural references. The authors found that AI models tend to give very specific descriptions that don't allow for multiple interpretations, and rarely mention cultural ideas. This shows that AI might miss an important part of how humans communicate when using images and words together.
Open 2609.12575v1

Multimodal models detect errors across images videos and audio

OmniHallu: Unified Hallucination Detection for Cross-Modal Comprehension and Generation in Multimodal Large Language Models

Abstract: While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across diverse tasks, they suffer from hallucinations where generated outputs contradict or misrepresent input semantics. Existing research typically addresses hallucination detection within a single modality or task type, limiting generalizability. We introduce OmniHallu, a unified hallucination detection framework spanning both comprehension and generation tasks across image, video, and audio modalities. We contribute OmniHallu-Bench, a 10,000-sample benchmark with claim-level human annotations covering six cross-modal tasks: image-to-text (I2T), video-to-text (V2T), audio-to-text (A2T), text-to-image (T2I), text-to-video (T2V), and text-to-audio (T2A). Our multi-agent architecture decomposes model outputs into atomic claims, verifies them through modality-specific experts, and aggregates evidence via structured reasoning. We further propose a preference-optimized trainable verifier that approximates the multi-agent decision boundary, reducing expert calls by 66% with minimal performance loss. Extensive experiments reveal a consistent modality-dependent performance gradient and provide fine-grained insights into cross-modal hallucination patterns.

Thu 10 SeptComputation and LanguageComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Multimodal large language models, which handle images, videos, and sounds along with text, sometimes make mistakes called hallucinations where they say things that don’t match the input. The authors created OmniHallu, a system that can find these mistakes for lots of different tasks and types of media all in one framework. They also made a big test set called OmniHallu-Bench with human-checked examples to help evaluate how well their system works. Their approach breaks down model outputs into small claims, checks each with specialists for the related media, and then combines this information carefully to decide if there’s a hallucination. They also built a faster version that keeps accuracy while needing fewer checks.
Open 2609.11244v1

Video models struggle with thinking tasks despite good visuals

From Evaluation to Enhancement: Benchmarking and Improving Think-with-Video Reasoning for Video Generative Models

Abstract: Video generation has advanced to produce visually compelling and temporally coherent results. Yet, whether these models can genuinely think with video--executing symbolic rules, respecting physical laws, and pursuing intentional goals--remains an open question. Existing benchmarks only partially address this, often conflating visual quality with cognitive correctness. We introduce VWG-Bench (Video World Generalist Benchmark), a comprehensive benchmark spanning 9 reasoning dimensions and 38 fine-grained tasks. To enable precise diagnosis, we design a three-level VLM-as-Judge protocol that independently assesses video-level fluency, task-level rule adherence, and sample-level goal realization. Evaluations of leading models reveal a striking gap: while models achieve strong rendering scores, they consistently fail on logic-heavy and rule-constrained tasks. To address this, we propose Vid-PRE (Video Prompt Reasoner and Enhancer), a model-agnostic prompt rewriter that offloads the cognitive burden of reasoning to a dedicated VLM. Trained via reinforcement learning with purely text-based rewards, Vid-PRE produces concise, constraint-aware prompts without the instability of video-level reward signals. Experiments show that Vid-PRE yields substantial reasoning improvements across multiple generators without architectural modifications. Together, VWG-Bench and Vid-PRE offer a rigorous diagnostic lens and a scalable path toward true think-with-video capabilities. All data and code are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/KlingTeam/VWG-Bench.

Thu 10 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Making videos with AI has gotten visually impressive, but these models often can't follow rules or goals in the videos they create. The authors designed a new way to test whether video AI truly reasons with the content instead of just looking good. They found that many models fail on logic and rule-based challenges. To help, they made a tool that improves how instructions are given to these video models, leading to better reasoning without changing the model itself.
Open 2609.11242v1

HalDetect detects visual hallucination in images with QLoRA fine tuning

HALDETECT at ImageEval 2026 Shared Tasks: Answer-First Contrastive Grounding with QLoRA

Abstract: Large multimodal models tend to hallucinate visual detail fluently, which limits their deployment for fine-grained interpretation. We present HALDETECT, our system for the English hallucination-detection track (Task 1b) of ImageEval 2026, in which a system must identify, from an image and three culturally plausible statements, the single visually grounded one. We frame the item as one contrastive decision, emit the answer before its explanation, and structure reasoning around colour/texture, shape/form, and context. Our best submitted adapter fine-tunes Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct with 4-bit QLoRA while freezing the vision encoder and reaches Contrastive Instability (CI) 0.035 on the 1,000-item test set; we placed third of eight teams. Development experiments show that answer order can matter more than model scale and that adaptation beats prompting alone. Retrospective paired analysis of the released gold labels confirms the QLoRA gain over the best prompt but not the small gap between the devtest-selected and best-test adapters, and reseeding all four training sizes shows that the apparent data-scaling curve does not survive a seed change. The 35 residual errors are culturally plausible function, material, and recognition distinctions; naive adapter voting does not help.

Thu 10 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Some large AI models can mistakenly add details that aren't really in an image, which can cause problems when interpreting pictures. The authors created HALDETECT to pick out the one true statement about an image from three options that all seem believable but only one is visually accurate. They improve how the model learns by focusing on contrast between choices, giving the answer first, and fine-tuning a language-vision model with a technique called QLoRA. Their system performed well in a competition, ranking third among eight teams. They also found that how the answer is ordered can affect results more than making the model bigger.
Open 2609.11236v1

Image tokenizers influence text and image tasks in multimodal AI models

Studying Image Tokenizers as Visual Languages in Unified Multimodal Models

Abstract: Image tokenizers define the ``visual language'' of unified multimodal models, yet are commonly studied through isolated metrics or generation-/understanding-only evaluations. These evaluations do not fully capture how visual tokens behave when modeled jointly with text. We build a controlled pure-autoregressive testbed and track task-specific validation losses during multimodal continual pretraining across text, image, text-to-image (T2I), and image-to-text (I2T) prediction. We examine how these losses scale and relate to downstream performance, then use them to study multimodal learnability---how well image and text tokens are jointly modeled---and tokenizer design. We find that (1) losses should be analyzed by task, since they exhibit distinct scaling behavior and rank tokenizers differently. (2) The loss--performance relationship depends on the predicted token space: for a fixed tokenizer, T2I and I2T losses correlate with generation quality, but across tokenizers, the T2I loss--performance relationship shifts with the image-token space, whereas I2T loss, computed over a shared text vocabulary, provides a more consistent signal. I2T loss also correlates with both generation and visual understanding performance after supervised finetuning. Using losses as a lens, we show that (3) better reconstruction does not necessarily yield lower task-specific losses or stronger downstream performance, and that (4) image tokenizer choice can affect text modeling under joint optimization. As case studies, we revisit three tokenizer design axes---the discriminator, semantic supervision, and vocabulary size---to examine their effects on joint modeling and downstream performance. Together, our testbed offers a complementary perspective on image tokenizers as visual languages, highlighting their interplay with text in joint multimodal training.

Tue 8 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionComputation and Language
The gist
Image tokenizers turn pictures into a kind of language that computers can understand alongside text. This paper studies how well different tokenizers work when images and words are learned together in an AI model. The authors found that how these tokenizers perform depends on the specific task and that better image reconstruction doesn't always mean better overall results. They also show that choosing the right image tokenizer can affect how well the model understands text when both are trained together. This helps improve how future AI handles pictures and words jointly.
Open 2609.09143v1

Multimodal retrieval improves answer accuracy with generator feedback

Bridging the Semantic-Utility Gap in Multimodal RAG via Generator-in-the-Loop Alignment

Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) augmented with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) benefit from access to external evidence. However, standard retrievers and rerankers optimize for semantic similarity rather than answer utility, creating a preference gap: documents that appear relevant may not help the generator produce a correct answer. Motivated by this, we propose a two-stage generator-in-the-loop alignment framework that closes this gap without human document-level relevance annotations. Our framework consists of two stages: in Stage 1, a VLM generates a hypothetical text passage from the image-query pair, which is used as the retrieval query for dense text search, bridging the image-to-text modality gap. In Stage 2, a cross-encoder reranker adapted with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is fine-tuned using answer-supervised preference pairs mined from the frozen VLM: given the dataset answer label, a candidate document is labeled positive if the VLM produces the correct answer when given that document as context, and negative otherwise. This generator-guided signal is compatible with multiple alignment loss functions, including contrastive (triplet) loss, pairwise direct preference optimization (DPO), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and supports periodic re-mining to refresh preference pairs as the reranker improves. Experiments on VQA-X and A-OKVQA with Qwen3.5-2B and Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct show that our proposed framework consistently outperforms rank-order, random, and REPLUG-style likelihood baselines under various alignment losses and pool size settings, suggesting that answer-level generator feedback is an effective supervision signal for preference alignment.

Tue 8 SeptArtificial IntelligenceInformation Retrieval
The gist
One problem with vision-language AI models that search for information to answer questions is that they often pick documents that seem relevant but don’t actually help produce the right answer. The authors propose a two-step method where the AI first imagines a text description from an image and question, then uses that to find documents. Afterward, the model learns to pick documents based on whether they helped it produce correct answers in the past, without needing human judgments. Their experiments show that this technique consistently finds better documents and improves answer quality on standard tests.
Open 2609.08188v1

Language should sit at model boundaries not inside internal layers

Where Should Language Sit in a Multimodal Model? Lessons from What Language Does to Human Perception and Cognition

Abstract: Language models compute over tokens: language is their input, their output, and increasingly their internal representation. Whether language should keep all of these positions depends on what language does to the system that uses it. The one system with a century of data on that question is the human. We review what language does to human perception, the brain, and thought, and read the same evidence against multimodal models and language models. Throughout, we treat language as a compressor that runs on a shared codebook: a word is an index, the content is in the receiver, and a community maintains the codebook. In humans the compression is measurable, learning the codebook reorganizes the senses, and thought survives the loss of language. We then measure the rule that models apply when two cues disagree, with cue-conflict experiments on six vision-language models and two robot policies. Surviving cues are weighted in the order their reliabilities prescribe, at 11 to 82\% of the ideal observer's slope, and many answers copy the text. One policy family drops a cue that adds no information beyond the others rather than down-weighting it, another keeps it at a weight that fails when the cues conflict, and a visual cue that identifies the task in every training frame is never learned, because the language pathway already fits the data. Language models are the best current models of the human language network, and they have entered the human speech community, shifting word frequencies while alignment narrows their conceptual diversity. We close with seven implications for token-based systems. Language belongs at a model's boundary and in the shared codebook, as in the brain, not as its internal representation; the price of leaving the codebook inside is auditability.

Mon 7 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
This work looks at where language fits best inside AI models that understand both language and images or other inputs. The authors studied how humans use language to change perception and thought, then tested several AI models to see how they rely on language versus visual cues. They found that language works best as an external interface or shared codebook, like in the human brain, rather than as the internal representation inside the model. This helps keep AI decisions more understandable and aligned with how humans process language.
Open 2609.07474v1