Grounded Multi-modal Conversation for Zero-shot Visual Question Answering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zero-shot visual question answering (VQA) poses a formidable challenge at the intersection of computer vision and natural language processing. Traditionally, this problem has been tackled using end-to-end pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs). However, recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) demonstrate their exceptional reasoning and comprehension abilities, making them valuable assets in multi-modal tasks, including zero-shot VQA. LLMs have been previously integrated with VLMs to solve zero-shot VQA in a conversation-based approach. However, while the focus in VQA tasks is often on specific regions rather than the entire image, this aspect has been overlooked in previous approaches. Consequently, the overall performance of the framework relies on the ability of the pre-trained VLM to locate the region of interest that is relevant to the requested visual information within the entire image. To address this challenge, this paper proposes Grounded Multi-modal Conversation for Zero-shot Visual Question Answering (GMC-VQA), a region-based framework that leverages the complementary strengths of LLMs and VLMs in a conversation-based approach. We employ a grounding mechanism to refine visual focus according to the semantics of the question and foster collaborative interaction between VLM and LLM, effectively bridging the gap between visual and textual modalities and enhancing comprehension and response generation for visual queries. We evaluate GMC-VQA across three diverse VQA datasets, achieving substantial average improvements of 10.04% over end-to-end VLMs and 2.52% over the state-of-the-art VLM-LLM communication-based framework, respectively. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/mrzarei5/GMC-VQA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".