Zetavision AI Lab
Abstract:AI-based Visually Impaired Assistance (VIA) remains challenging, largely due to the high cost of human evaluation. The VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm may offer a promising alternative, although it has mostly been studied in general domains. We therefore ask whether such judges can be trusted for VIA tasks. To investigate this question, we introduce VIABLE (Visually Impaired Assistance Benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation), the first benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge evaluation in VIA. VIABLE contains over 300K judgment samples across three scenarios and introduces an Effectiveness--Impartiality--Stability framework with a 12-mode failure taxonomy. Based on VIABLE, our systematic study of seven judges across different model scales shows that existing models are largely unreliable across all evaluation axes. The strongest judge, GPT-5.4, achieves only 52.6% single-failure diagnostic accuracy, yet exhibits the highest self-preference rate at 94.2%; while open-source judges are strongly biased and adversarially fragile. To address these issues, we propose VIA-Judge-Agent, a model-agnostic inference-time harness that augments judges with visual evidence extraction and a taxonomy-guided workflow. It enables positive improvements in diagnostic accuracy and downstream VIA responses more preferred by BLV users. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/YiyiyiZhao/VIABLE
Abstract:Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on multimodal tasks through scaled architectures and extensive training. Recent studies introduce Mixture of Experts (MoE) into LVLMs for improved computational efficiency. However, existing MoE approaches treat visual and linguistic modalities with symmetric architectures, overlooking the inherent asymmetry in how these two modalities are processed. This asymmetry causes two critical issues. First, text and vision form hierarchical rather than parallel relationships, as text queries typically describe partial aspects of complete visual scenes. Euclidean expert space struggles to encode such containment structures. Second, language experts in deeper layers progressively shift from evidence-based processing to parametric memory dependence, losing grounding in the provided visual and linguistic information. To address these issues, we propose AsyMoE, a novel architecture that explicitly models this asymmetry through three specialized expert groups. Intra-modality experts handle modality-specific processing. Hyperbolic inter-modality experts capture hierarchical cross-modal relationships through negative curvature geometry. Evidence-priority language experts suppress parametric memory activation and maintain contextual grounding throughout network depth. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AsyMoE achieves consistent improvements over baseline methods, with average gains of 1.5\% over MoE variants and up to 3.8\% on hallucination-sensitive tasks. AsyMoE activates 25.45\% fewer parameters compared to dense models.
Abstract:Ensuring agent behaviors in distributed open multi-agent systems remains challenging, especially as populations grow and unaligned agents may exist. We show that a single aligned agent can propagate cooperative behaviors to untrained agents purely through natural language interaction, a phenomenon we term Alignment Propagation. We study this in the Red-Black Game, a team-based iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in which teammates deliberate and vote to determine their team's collective action. By distilling the cooperative reasoning and persuasive dialogues of a teacher model into a Qwen-3-14B, we obtain a seed agent that, when placed among four untrained teammates, doubles the cooperation rate from 24.8% to 62.2%, outperforming the teacher model and a vanilla Gemini-3.1-Pro. Remarkably, a seed trained exclusively on the RedBlack Game transfers zero-shot to Sugarscape, a spatially grounded survival simulation with pairwise trading, achieving a 91.5% trade success rate versus a 21.6% baseline. Our results reframe multi-agent alignment from an exhaustive per-agent training problem to a scalable social capability that can be engineered through strategic seed placement.
Abstract:Vision-Language Models such as CLIP exhibit strong zero-shot recognition capability by aligning images with textual concepts, yet they often underperform on multi-label recognition where multiple objects co-exist. A key bottleneck is that the [CLS] token, as a single global visual representation, is insufficient to faithfully encode diverse targets with varying scales, contexts, and co-occurrence patterns. To address this limitation, we present a new multi-label image recognition framework, termed PIAA, which formulates prediction as Patch-level Inference followed by Adaptive Aggregation. Specifically, we first enhance patch-wise predictions from two complementary perspectives: (i) mitigating semantic entanglement in the visual encoder to obtain more discriminative patch representations, and (ii) learning an unsupervised visual classifier to narrow the vision-language modality gap. We then introduce an adaptive aggregation module that consolidates patch-level scores into the final multi-label prediction. Notably, the entire pipeline is fully training-free, requiring no gradient updates or parameter fine-tuning. Experiments show that our method achieves strong improvements with minimal extra computation, exceeding a 6% mAP gain on the challenging NUS-WIDE benchmark over representative baselines. Code is available at https://github.com/akang-wang/PIAA.
Abstract:Federated learning (FL) is a key paradigm for distributed model learning across decentralized data sources. Communication in each FL round typically consists of two phases: (i) distributing the global model from a server to clients, and (ii) collecting updated local models from clients to the server for aggregation. This paper focuses on a type of FL where communication between a client and the server is relay-based over dynamic networks, making routing optimization essential. A typical scenario is in-orbit FL, where satellites act as clients and communicate with a server (which can be a satellite, ground station, or aerial platform) via multi-hop inter-satellite links. This paper presents a comprehensive tractability analysis of routing optimization for in-orbit FL under different settings. For global model distribution, these include the number of models, the objective function, and routing schemes (unicast versus multicast, and splittable versus unsplittable flow). For local model collection, the settings consider the number of models, client selection, and flow splittability. For each case, we rigorously prove whether the global optimum is obtainable in polynomial time or the problem is NP-hard. Together, our analysis draws clear boundaries between tractable and intractable regimes for a broad spectrum of routing problems for in-orbit FL. For tractable cases, the derived efficient algorithms are directly applicable in practice. For intractable cases, we provide fundamental insights into their inherent complexity. These contributions fill a critical yet unexplored research gap, laying a foundation for principled routing design, evaluation, and deployment in satellite-based FL or similar distributed learning systems.
Abstract:With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of academic manuscripts, such as clarity, originality and other evaluation aspects. Although prior studies suggest that LLMs are beginning to influence peer review, it remains unclear whether they are altering its core evaluative functions. Moreover, the extent to which LLMs affect the linguistic form, evaluative focus, and recommendation-related signals of peer-review reports has yet to be systematically examined. In this study, we examine the changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of LLMs, emphasizing variations at fine-grained level. Specifically, we investigate linguistic features such as the length and complexity of words and sentences in review comments, while also automatically annotating the evaluation aspects of individual review sentences. We also use a maximum likelihood estimation method, previously established, to identify review reports that potentially have modified or generated by LLMs. Finally, we assess the impact of evaluation aspects mentioned in LLM-assisted review reports on the informativeness of recommendation for paper decision-making. The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity, as well as more standardized linguistic patterns, particularly reviewers with lower confidence score. At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.
Abstract:Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex tasks through extended chains of thought but suffer from high inference latency due to autoregressive reasoning. Recent work explores using Small Reasoning Models (SRMs) to accelerate LRM inference. In this paper, we systematically characterize the capability boundaries of SRMs and identify three common types of reasoning risks: (1) path divergence, where SRMs lack the strategic ability to construct an initial plan, causing reasoning to deviate from the most probable path; (2) cognitive overload, where SRMs fail to solve particularly difficult steps; and (3) recovery inability, where SRMs lack robust self-reflection and error correction mechanisms. To address these challenges, we propose TrigReason, a trigger-based collaborative reasoning framework that replaces continuous polling with selective intervention. TrigReason delegates most reasoning to the SRM and activates LRM intervention only when necessary-during initial strategic planning (strategic priming trigger), upon detecting extraordinary overconfidence (cognitive offload trigger), or when reasoning falls into unproductive loops (intervention request trigger). The evaluation results on AIME24, AIME25, and GPQA-D indicate that TrigReason matches the accuracy of full LRMs and SpecReason, while offloading 1.70x - 4.79x more reasoning steps to SRMs. Under edge-cloud conditions, TrigReason reduces latency by 43.9\% and API cost by 73.3\%. Our code is available at \href{https://github.com/QQQ-yi/TrigReason}{https://github.com/QQQ-yi/TrigReason}
Abstract:The rapid expansion of gaming industry requires advanced recommender systems tailored to its dynamic landscape. Existing Graph Neural Network (GNN)-based methods primarily prioritize accuracy over diversity, overlooking their inherent trade-off. To address this, we previously proposed CPGRec, a balance-oriented gaming recommender system. However, CPGRec fails to account for critical disparities in player-game interactions, which carry varying significance in reflecting players' personal preferences and may exacerbate over-smoothness issues inherent in GNN-based models. Moreover, existing approaches underutilize the reasoning capabilities and extensive knowledge of large language models (LLMs) in addressing these limitations. To bridge this gap, we propose two new modules. First, Preference-informed Edge Reweighting (PER) module assigns signed edge weights to qualitatively distinguish significant player interests and disinterests while then quantitatively measuring preference strength to mitigate over-smoothing in graph convolutions. Second, Preference-informed Representation Generation (PRG) module leverages LLMs to generate contextualized descriptions of games and players by reasoning personal preferences from comparing global and personal interests, thereby refining representations of players and games. Experiments on \textcolor{black}{two Steam datasets} demonstrate CPGRec+'s superior accuracy and diversity over state-of-the-art models. The code is accessible at https://github.com/HsipingLi/CPGRec-Plus.
Abstract:Scientific novelty drives advances at the research frontier, yet it is also associated with heightened uncertainty and potential resistance from incumbent paradigms, leading to complex patterns of scientific impact. Prior studies have primarily ex-amined the relationship between a single dimension of novelty -- such as theoreti-cal, methodological, or results-based novelty -- and scientific impact. However, because scientific novelty is inherently multidimensional, focusing on isolated dimensions may obscure how different types of novelty jointly shape impact. Consequently, we know little about how combinations of novelty types influence scientific impact. To this end, we draw on a dataset of 15,322 articles published in Nature Communications. Using the DeepSeek-V3 model, we classify articles into three novelty dimensions based on the content of their Introduction sections: theoretical novelty, methodological novelty, and results-based novelty. These dimensions may coexist within the same article, forming distinct novelty configura-tions. Scientific impact is measured using five-year citation counts and indicators of whether an article belongs to the top 1% or top 10% highly cited papers. Descriptive results indicate that results-based novelty alone and the simultaneous presence of all three novelty types are the dominant configurations in the sample. Regression results further show that articles with results-based novelty only re-ceive significantly more citations and are more likely to rank among the top 1% and top 10% highly cited papers than articles exhibiting all three novelty types. These findings advance our understanding of how multidimensional novelty configurations shape knowledge diffusion.
Abstract:Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.