PreprintCited by 235Categorization, perception, and languageMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Language Is Not All You Need: Aligning Perception with Language Models

Open access
Huang, Shaohan, Dong, Li, Wang, Wenhui, Hao, Yaru, Singhal, Saksham, Ma, Shuming, Lv, Tengchao, Cui, Lei +10 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

A big convergence of language, multimodal perception, action, and world modeling is a key step toward artificial general intelligence. In this work, we introduce Kosmos-1, a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) that can perceive general modalities, learn in context (i.e., few-shot), and follow instructions (i.e., zero-shot). Specifically, we train Kosmos-1 from scratch on web-scale multimodal corpora, including arbitrarily interleaved text and images, image-caption pairs, and text data. We evaluate various settings, including zero-shot, few-shot, and multimodal chain-of-thought prompting, on a wide range of tasks without any gradient updates or finetuning. Experimental results show that Kosmos-1 achieves impressive performance on (i) language understanding, generation, and even OCR-free NLP (directly fed with document images), (ii) perception-language tasks, including multimodal dialogue, image captioning, visual question answering, and (iii) vision tasks, such as image recognition with descriptions (specifying classification via text instructions). We also show that MLLMs can benefit from cross-modal transfer, i.e., transfer knowledge from language to multimodal, and from multimodal to language. In addition, we introduce a dataset of Raven IQ test, which diagnoses the nonverbal reasoning capability of MLLMs.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2302.14045

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Developing more efficient transformer architectures tailored for multimodal data, such as Kosmos-1, Muse, and PixArt-α, presents a viable solution.

    “Furthermore, developing more efficient transformer architectures tailored for multimodal data, such as Kosmos-1 [162], Muse [163], and PixArt-α [164], presents a viable solution.”

    From Multimodal Large Language Models in Health Care: Applications, Challenges, and Future Outlook. (2024) · cites this paper as [162]

    Section 2 identifies KOSMOS-1 as a Transformer-based model for multimodal input, supporting its use as an example. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 describe ways to reduce image embeddings and improve optimization, but the paper does not establish that KOSMOS-1 is a more efficient architecture or that developing such architectures is a viable solution. This verdict concerns only the Kosmos-1 citation, not Muse or PixArt-α. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • KOSMOS-1 is capable of understanding general patterns, following instructions, and learning based on context.

    “Huang et al. [77] introduced KOSMOS-1, which is capable of understanding general patterns, following instructions, and learning based on context.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [77]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Elia Bruni, Gemma Boleda, Marco Baroni, and Nam Khanh Tran. Distributional semantics in technicolor. In ACL, 2012.
  2. Patricia A Carpenter, Marcel A Just, and Peter Shell. What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological review, 97(3):404, 1990.
  3. Hector Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. The winograd schema chal- lenge. In Thirteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Repre- sentation and Reasoning, 2012.
  4. Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S. Gordon. Choice of plau- sible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In AAAI Spring Symposium, 2011.
  5. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. WinoGrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In AAAI, pages 8732-8740, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, S., Dong, L., Wang, W., Hao, Y., Singhal, S., Ma, S., Lv, T., Cui, L., Mohammed, O. K., Patra, B., Liu, Q., Aggarwal, K., Chi, Z., Bjorck, J., Chaudhary, V., Som, S., Song, X., & Wei, F.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
72096-72109
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7133185515
Cited by
235
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 55 · 2021: 1
FWCI
86.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
language models, perception, multimodal alignment, vision-language models

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