arXiv subjects

Hugh Mee Wong

Publications and source records attributed to Hugh Mee Wong.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

From Vision to Language: Investigating Causal Information Flow in Multimodal Decision-Making

Vision-Language Models are commonly evaluated through their final predictions, but understanding whether these decisions are grounded in visual evidence requires tracing how visual information contributes to language-based decisions. With this purpose in mind, we investigate cross-modal information flow in a video-based generative multiple-choice-like setting by applying a layer-wise causal intervention on video-text attention pathways. We target spatial, causal, and temporal visual reasoning. Our results show that visual information is mainly integrated while the model processes the candidate answer options, which serve as the primary textual grounding sites for the final decision. We further show that nouns play an important role as semantic anchors during multimodal enrichment, while verbs are more relevant when temporal relations are processed. Finally, we identify a distinct pattern in temporal reasoning, suggesting that VLMs struggle to reconstruct sequential information across video frames, but we remark that such fragility may also reflect linguistic biases associated with specific temporal expressions used for defining the relation between events within a scene.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Investigating Multimodal Informativity under Different Partner Visibility Conditions in Video-Mediated Dialogue

Situated language use is multimodal and embodied. For example, gestures can carry information that is absent or underspecified in the speech signal, yet dialogue models typically rely on transcripts alone. We study how much referential information gestures and their combination with speech carry in multimodal dialogue under different partner visibility conditions. % We build models that identify the intended referent in a video-mediated referential communication game based on either the speech transcript, the skeletal representation of gesture, or both modalities. Our results show that gesture alone is predictive of the intended referent and that multimodal fusion is most beneficial when the transcript-based model is uncertain. Training-only alignment of learned representations with the referent image further improves the fusion model performance. % In a comparison with human interaction data, we further see pragmatic effects of interlocutor visibility on gesture production and informativeness as well as an entrainment effect in speech and multimodal, but not gesture, performance across rounds of repeated interaction. We thus make contributions to the technical modelling of multimodal information in human dialogue and the analysis of human interaction data via trained model representations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Models Decide and When They Bind: A Two-Stage Computation for Multiple-Choice Question-Answering

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is easy to evaluate but adds a meta-task: models must both solve the problem and output the symbol that *represents* the answer, conflating reasoning errors with symbol-binding failures. We study how language models implement MCQA internally using representational analyses (PCA, linear probes) as well as causal interventions. We find that option-boundary (newline) residual states often contain strong linearly decodable signals related to per-option correctness. Winner-identity probing reveals a two-stage progression: the winning *content position* becomes decodable immediately after the final option is processed, while the *output symbol* is represented closer to the answer emission position. Tests under symbol and content permutations support a two-stage mechanism in which models first select a winner in content space and then bind or route that winner to the appropriate symbol to emit.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DeMeVa at LeWiDi-2025: Modeling Perspectives with In-Context Learning and Label Distribution Learning

This system paper presents the DeMeVa team's approaches to the third edition of the Learning with Disagreements shared task (LeWiDi 2025; Leonardelli et al., 2025). We explore two directions: in-context learning (ICL) with large language models, where we compare example sampling strategies; and label distribution learning (LDL) methods with RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), where we evaluate several fine-tuning methods. Our contributions are twofold: (1) we show that ICL can effectively predict annotator-specific annotations (perspectivist annotations), and that aggregating these predictions into soft labels yields competitive performance; and (2) we argue that LDL methods are promising for soft label predictions and merit further exploration by the perspectivist community.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Disentangling the Roles of Representation and Selection in Data Pruning

Data pruning, selecting small but impactful subsets, offers a promising way to efficiently scale NLP model training. However, existing methods often involve many different design choices, which have not been systematically studied. This limits future developments. In this work, we decompose data pruning into two key components: the data representation and the selection algorithm, and we systematically analyze their influence on the selection of instances. Our theoretical and empirical results highlight the crucial role of representations: better representations, e.g., training gradients, generally lead to a better selection of instances, regardless of the chosen selection algorithm. Furthermore, different selection algorithms excel in different settings, and none consistently outperforms the others. Moreover, the selection algorithms do not always align with their intended objectives: for example, algorithms designed for the same objective can select drastically different instances, highlighting the need for careful evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

VAQUUM: Are Vague Quantifiers Grounded in Visual Data?

Vague quantifiers such as "a few" and "many" are influenced by various contextual factors, including the number of objects present in a given context. In this work, we evaluate the extent to which vision-and-language models (VLMs) are compatible with humans when producing or judging the appropriateness of vague quantifiers in visual contexts. We release a novel dataset, VAQUUM, containing 20,300 human ratings on quantified statements across a total of 1089 images. Using this dataset, we compare human judgments and VLM predictions using three different evaluation methods. Our findings show that VLMs, like humans, are influenced by object counts in vague quantifier use. However, we find significant inconsistencies across models in different evaluation settings, suggesting that judging and producing vague quantifiers rely on two different processes.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

Attention vs non-attention for a Shapley-based explanation method

The field of explainable AI has recently seen an explosion in the number of explanation methods for highly non-linear deep neural networks. The extent to which such methods -- that are often proposed and tested in the domain of computer vision -- are appropriate to address the explainability challenges in NLP is yet relatively unexplored. In this work, we consider Contextual Decomposition (CD) -- a Shapley-based input feature attribution method that has been shown to work well for recurrent NLP models -- and we test the extent to which it is useful for models that contain attention operations. To this end, we extend CD to cover the operations necessary for attention-based models. We then compare how long distance subject-verb relationships are processed by models with and without attention, considering a number of different syntactic structures in two different languages: English and Dutch. Our experiments confirm that CD can successfully be applied for attention-based models as well, providing an alternative Shapley-based attribution method for modern neural networks. In particular, using CD, we show that the English and Dutch models demonstrate similar processing behaviour, but that under the hood there are consistent differences between our attention and non-attention models.

cs.CL↗