🚀 New paper: AVIS: Adaptive Visual Inference Scaling for Vision-Language Models
Most test-time scaling methods for vision-language models optimize a single axis of compute: either scale visual context or perform more reasoning rollouts.
AVIS jointly adapts both. It allocates compute across visual context scaling and visual reasoning scaling on a per-query basis, combining efficient visual token pruning with adaptive reasoning search.
📊 Across diverse image and video reasoning benchmarks, AVIS achieves a better accuracy–compute trade-off than methods that scale only visual context or only reasoning, while remaining deployment-friendly through shared-prefill inference and KV-cache reuse.
Vision-language inference is not just about seeing more or thinking longer. AVIS learns when to do each.
📄 Paper: https://t.co/KIJ2E7EMCw
🌐 Website: https://t.co/Y7x7qtD0a6
Amazing teamwork with @amirkz99@karaimer@CSProfKGD@Babak_Taati
🚀 New paper: GEAR: Genetic AutoResearch for Agentic Code Evolution
Most autonomous research agents search like greedy hill climbers: edit one program, run one experiment, and keep only the best result.
GEAR replaces this with a population-based frontier of research states, using mutation, crossover, and an evolvable search policy to preserve and recombine promising ideas.
📊 Under the same AutoResearch setup and 100-experiment budget, all GEAR variants outperform the baseline.
Research is not one path. GEAR gives agents a frontier.
📄 Paper: https://t.co/HgAN6LC9vg
🌐 Website: https://t.co/2jhAhtrU2E
#autoresearch #llm #agentic_ai #agentic_coding
@karaimer@CSProfKGD@Babak_Taati
Loops, loops, loops… LoopFormer.
Looped Language Models are becoming one of the defining themes of 2026, and next week I’ll be presenting our paper, LoopFormer, at #ICLR2026.
Lmk if you want to chat about looped LMs in Rio.
LoopFormer is the next step in Recursive Language Modeling (RLMs): it treats iterative refinement in looped Transformers as a trajectory in representation space, conditioning each loop on time and step size so the same model is both parameter-efficient and compute-adaptive.
Dive deeper into PC-GRPO, an innovative approach for VLM self-improvement using puzzle-based RL.
Explore the paper: https://t.co/svd7dAWwCa
Project details: https://t.co/DMRX9tMhkM
Samsung introduces PC-GRPO for Vision-Centric Reasoning
This novel framework uses self-supervised visual puzzles & a difficulty-aware curriculum to train VLMs. It achieves state-of-the-art visual reasoning without costly annotations, improving stability and accuracy.
We achieve the best performance on Qwen-VL-2.5 (3B/7B). We also propose a remedy for cleaning existing benchmarks and evaluate both our model and baselines on the cleaned sets. Our model consistently improves. See the project page for details.
We identify a critical challenge in VLM GRPO post-training: the chain of reasoning and the final answer drift apart. We introduce the Reasoning/Answer Consistency (RAC) metric to quantify this, and we integrate consistency-enhancing reward schemes into our setup.
Instead of noisy labels, we use verifiable vision pretext puzzles — Jigsaw, Rotation, PatchFit — for RLVR. Rewards are exact (Jigsaw gives partial credit). With a difficulty-aware curriculum, we overcome GRPO’s flat/sparse rewards.
This realization forced us to change our entire approach. If human annotations are this noisy (and expensive), we shouldn’t rely on them for RLVR. So we asked: can we teach a VLM to reason without a single labeled image? Enter Puzzle Curriculum GRPO (PC-GRPO).
Not just typos. We audited MMStar, SEEDBench, MME, and ColorBench with human raters + strong model committees. Found subjective answers, invisible details, and flat-out wrong facts. If 1/5 questions are wrong, how can we trust leaderboards or measure progress?
🚨 New paper: I spent weeks digging into our VLM’s “failures” and found something unsettling: the model was right; the benchmark was wrong. 😑
Our audits show ~10–20% of “ground truth” in top vision benchmarks is incorrect or ambiguous. 🧵👇