Papers › Towards Robust Multi-Modal Reasoning via Model Selection

Towards Robust Multi-Modal Reasoning via Model Selection

12 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.08446archive 2025-07-28

Xiangyan Liu, Rongxue Li, Wei Ji, Tao Lin

The reasoning capabilities of LLM (Large Language Model) are widely acknowledged in recent research, inspiring studies on tool learning and autonomous agents. LLM serves as the "brain" of the agent, orchestrating multiple tools for collaborative multi-step task solving. Unlike methods invoking tools like calculators or weather APIs for straightforward tasks, multi-modal agents excel by integrating diverse AI models for complex challenges. However, current multi-modal agents neglect the significance of model selection: they primarily focus on the planning and execution phases, and will only invoke predefined task-specific models for each subtask, making the execution fragile. Meanwhile, other traditional model selection methods are either incompatible with or suboptimal for the multi-modal agent scenarios, due to ignorance of dependencies among subtasks arising by multi-step reasoning. To this end, we identify the key challenges therein and propose the M³ framework as a plug-in with negligible runtime overhead at test-time. This framework improves model selection and bolsters the robustness of multi-modal agents in multi-step reasoning. In the absence of suitable benchmarks, we create MS-GQA, a new dataset specifically designed to investigate the model selection challenge in multi-modal agents. Our experiments reveal that our framework enables dynamic model selection, considering both user inputs and subtask dependencies, thereby robustifying the overall reasoning process. Our code and benchmark: https://github.com/LINs-lab/M3.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

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

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2310.08446")

Code

Syntology Ran 3 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 6 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

LINs-lab/M3 officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorchApache-2.0 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

6 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

3ran
3unverified

Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from LINs-lab/M3. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

create_graph_from_program LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/preprocess.py official repository ran Apache-2.0 (permissive) · f93b1f963e736c8b · report
get_ori_task_types LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/run_metagl.py official repository ran Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 54f795d322b7185d · report
parse_step LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/preprocess.py official repository ran fingerprinted Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 6789f8911c900d76 · report
build_dataset LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/run_metagl.py official repository unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · d8d9625bb4bcbddf · report
evaluate_model LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/run_m3.py official repository unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · a1cb3bb3f6e48673 · report
evaluate_model LINs-lab/M3/MS-GQA/code/run_ncf++.py official repository unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 80cf4f2a02aa0335 · report

Tasks

Language ModellingLarge Language ModelModel Selectionmodel

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Focus

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