Papers › Enhancing Semantics in Multimodal Chain of Thought via Soft Negative Sampling

Enhancing Semantics in Multimodal Chain of Thought via Soft Negative Sampling

16 May 2024arXiv:2405.09848archive 2025-07-28

Guangmin Zheng, Jin Wang, Xiaobing Zhou, Xuejie Zhang

Chain of thought (CoT) has proven useful for problems requiring complex reasoning. Many of these problems are both textual and multimodal. Given the inputs in different modalities, a model generates a rationale and then uses it to answer a question. Because of the hallucination issue, the generated soft negative rationales with high textual quality but illogical semantics do not always help improve answer accuracy. This study proposes a rationale generation method using soft negative sampling (SNSE-CoT) to mitigate hallucinations in multimodal CoT. Five methods were applied to generate soft negative samples that shared highly similar text but had different semantics from the original. Bidirectional margin loss (BML) was applied to introduce them into the traditional contrastive learning framework that involves only positive and negative samples. Extensive experiments on the ScienceQA dataset demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method. Code and data are released at https://github.com/zgMin/SNSE-CoT.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

zgmin/snse-cot officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Contrastive LearningHallucination

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Contrastive Learning

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections