Abstract:Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at visual reasoning but rely on text-based chain-of-thought (CoT), lacking interpretable visual intermediates. Existing methods use opaque tokens or external tools, missing key properties. We propose Gen-VCoT, a framework using expert vision models to generate RGB images as reasoning intermediates. It has three stages: visual grounding (SAM segmentation), geometric reasoning (Marigold depth maps), and semantic reasoning (Qwen2-VL integration). An adaptive router selects reasoning depth. Evaluations show Gen-VCoT improves spatial (25% better) and depth (50% better) questions, but may hurt simple factual queries. Text CoT outperforms visual intermediates on CLEVR (91.2% vs 62.5%), showing task-dependent optimal representations. Gen-VCoT establishes a new paradigm for interpretable multimodal reasoning.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for technical document generation, yet single-model outputs often suffer from over-engineering, security blind spots, and incomplete coverage. We propose TriAdReview, a triangular adversarial review architecture that employs two independent reviewer models (engineering and boundary perspectives) and a triangular judging mechanism to iteratively improve a generator model's output. We evaluate TriAdReview across five benchmark tasks - architecture design, code generation, proposal review, security audit, and requirements analysis - using three configurations: single model (baseline), dual model (single review), and triple model (full system). Results across 75 experiments (n=5 per cell) show that the triple model configuration achieves a 10.1% overall improvement over the single model baseline (26.2 vs. 23.8 out of 50; p<0.05, paired t-test), with particularly strong gains on security audit (+27.6%), code generation (+20.8%), and architecture design (+15.6%). A second scorer (mimo-v2.5-pro) confirms the direction with a smaller effect (+2.7%), suggesting moderate inter-rater agreement. However, the system shows a -7.5% degradation on requirements analysis, revealing that adversarial review architectures have a structural bias toward simplification that is counterproductive for completeness-oriented tasks. We analyze this boundary condition through a task-type framework and demonstrate that reviewer prompt adaptation partially mitigates the issue. Our findings provide the first empirical characterization of when multi-model adversarial review helps versus harms, with implications for the design of collaborative AI systems.