DIEM: Decomposition-Integration Enhancing Multimodal Insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In image question answering, due to the abundant and sometimes redundant information, precisely matching and integrating the information from both text and images is a challenge. In this paper, we propose the Decomposition-Integration Enhancing Multimodal Insight (DIEM) which initially decomposes the given question and image into multiple subquestions and several sub-images aiming to isolate specific elements for more focused analysis. We then in-tegrate these sub-elements by matching each subquestion with its relevant sub-images, while also retaining the original image, to construct a comprehensive answer to the original question without losing sight of the overall context. This strategy mirrors the human cognitive process of simplifying complex problems into smaller components for individual analysis, followed by an integration of these insights. We implement DIEM on the LLaVA-v1.5 model, and evaluate its performance on ScienceQA and MM-Vet. Ex-perimental results indicate that our method boosts accu-racy in most question classes of the ScienceQA (+2.03% in average), especially in the image modality (+3.40%). On MM-Vet, our method achieves an improvement in MM-Vet scores, increasing from 31.1 to 32.4. These findings high-light DIEM's effectiveness in harmonizing the complexities of multimodal data, demonstrating its ability to enhance accuracy and depth in image question answering through its decomposition-integration process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".