Cited by 49Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Visual Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Knowledge-Based Visual Reasoning

Open access
Chen, Zhenfang, Zhou, Qinhong, Shen, Yikang, Hong, Yining, Sun, Zhiqing, Gutfreund, Dan, Gan, Chuang·2024·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Knowledge-based visual reasoning remains a daunting task since it not only requires machines to interpret the concepts and relationships from visual scenes but also associate them with external world knowledge to conduct a chain of reasoning on open-world questions. Previous works, however, treat visual perception and language-based reasoning as two independent modules, failing to attend to both modules throughout all stages of reasoning. To this end, we propose Visual Chain-of-thought Prompting (VCTP) for knowledge-based reasoning, which involves the interaction between visual content and natural language in an iterative step-by-step reasoning manner. VCTP contains three stages, see, think, and confirm. The see stage scans the image and grounds the visual concept candidates with a visual perception model. The think stage adopts a pre-trained large language model (LLM) to attend to key visual concepts from natural language questions adaptively. It then transforms key visual context into text context for prompting with a visual captioning model, and adopts the LLM to generate the answer. The confirm stage further uses the LLM to generate the supporting rationale to the answer, which is then passed through a cross-modality classifier to verify that it’s consistent with the visual context. We iterate through the think-confirm stages to ensure the verified rationale is consistent with the answer. We conduct experiments on a range of knowledge-based visual reasoning datasets. We found our VCTP enjoys several benefits, 1). it achieves better performance than the previous few-shot learning baselines; 2). it enjoys the total transparency and trustworthiness of the whole reasoning process by providing rationales for each reasoning step; 3). it is computation-efficient compared with other fine-tuning baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/UMass-Foundation-Model/VisualCoT.git

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v38i2.27888

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Visual CoT methods operate on a fixed image and remain reasoning-centric.

    “Recent works such as Visual CoT prompting (Chen et al., 2024), ARGUS (Man et al., 2025), ReFocus (Fu et al., 2025), Chain-of-Spot (Liu et al., 2024d), GRIT (Fan et al., 2025), and spatial-reasoning studies (Zhong et al., 2026b; Zhu et al., 2026) improve multimodal reasoning by generating grounded reasoning chains or editing visual evidence, yet they operate on a fixed image and remain reasoning-”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Antol, S.; Agrawal, A.; Lu, J.; Mitchell, M.; Batra, D.; Zit- nick, C. L.; and Parikh, D. 2015. Vqa: Visual question an- swering. In ICCV.
  2. Dou, Z.-Y.; Kamath, A.; Gan, Z.; Zhang, P.; Wang, J.; Li, L.; Liu, Z.; Liu, C.; LeCun, Y.; Peng, N.; et al. 2022. Coarse-to- fine vision-language pre-training with fusion in the backbone. arXiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Z., Zhou, Q., Shen, Y., Hong, Y., Sun, Z., Gutfreund, D., & Gan, C.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-03-24
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
1254-1262
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4393149666
Cited by
48
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 3
FWCI
9.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
chain-of-thought prompting, large language models, visual captioning, rationale generation, visual grounding, few-shot learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review