Unified Generative and Discriminative Training for Multi-modal Large Language Models

In recent times, Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have been trained under two predominant paradigms. Generative training has enabled Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to tackle various complex tasks, yet issues such as hallucinations and weak object discrimination persist. Discriminative training, exemplified by models like CLIP, excels in zero-shot image-text classification and retrieval, yet struggles with complex scenarios requiring fine-grained semantic differentiation. This paper addresses these challenges by proposing a unified approach that integrates the strengths of both paradigms. Considering interleaved image-text sequences as the general format of input samples, we introduce a structure-induced training strategy that imposes semantic relationships between input samples and the MLLM's hidden state. This approach enhances the MLLM's ability to capture global semantics and distinguish fine-grained semantics. By leveraging dynamic sequence alignment within the Dynamic Time Warping framework and integrating a novel kernel for fine-grained semantic differentiation, our method effectively balances generative and discriminative tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, achieving state-of-the-art results in multiple generative tasks, especially those requiring cognitive and discrimination abilities. Additionally, our method surpasses discriminative benchmarks in interleaved and fine-grained retrieval tasks. By employing a retrieval-augmented generation strategy, our approach further enhances performance in some generative tasks within one model, offering a promising direction for future research in vision-language modeling.

Paper

References (100)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer DDMF6/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-10

Summary

This paper proposes a novel learning paradigm to learn MLLMs based on interleaved image-text corpora. It introduces a structure-induced training strategy that imposes semantic relationships between input samples and the MLLM’s hidden state. This work apply the dynamic time warping framework to calculate the semantic similarity between different image-text sequences. Then, a discriminative loss is applied to sequence similarity matrices calculated based on raw inputs and MLLM hidden states. The framework can also leverage the capabilities of multiple vision and language encoders to more accurately calculate the similarity matrices. Experiment results show that the new learning paradigm demonstrates good performance on basic multimodal comprehension benchmarks, complicated multimodal comprehension benchmark DEMON, cross-model information retrieval, and retrieval-augmented generation.

Strengths

1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow. 2. This paper proposes a novel learning paradigm based on interleaved image-text corpora.

Weaknesses

1. This paper did not discussed the impact of including interleaved image-text pairs in MLLM learning. For example, how will it affect the performance on basic visual-language benchmarks (Table 1) and image-text retrieval. Will there be any negative effects?

Questions

1. Can sugar better leverage the multi-modal in-context examples or better understand interleaved image-text content, is there any evaluation for that? 2. What is exactly the amount of interleaved image-text sequences (from MMC4) and image-text pairs (from other datasets) used to train Sugar. 3. What is the context window size of Sugar?

Rating

6

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table B

Table B: Comparison with baseline on 11 visual-language benchmark with equitable data volume. | | VQA | GQA | VizWiz | SQAI | VQAT | POPE | MMEP | MMEC | MMB | LLaVAWd | MM-Vet | | ------------------- | --------- | ---------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ---------- | --------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 78.5 | 62.0 | 50.0 | 66.8 | 58.2 | 85.9 | 1510.7 | – | 64.3 | 49.0 | 30.5 | | VILA-7B | 79.9 | 62.3 | 57.8 | 68.2 | 64.4 | 85.5 | 1533.0 | 296.1 | 68.9 | 70.0 | 34.9 | | Sugar | 76.0 | 58.7 | 60.4 | 69.4 | 57.5 | 86.6 | 1550.8 | 300.0 | 64.9 | 75.6 | 31.3 | | with equitable data volume | **80.2** | **63.1** | **61.0** | **72.1** | **65.1** | **87.2** | **1550.0** | **309.0** | **69.3** | **76.4** | **36.8** | *We also present the results in Table B of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table E

Table E: Comparison with baseline in 5 challenging tasks. | | **Multi-image VQA** | | **In-context Interaction** | | **Visual Prompt** | | ------------------- | ------------------- | -------- | -------------------------- | -------- | ------------------ | | | SEED | Mantis | Visual Dialog | VIST-SIS | BLINK | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 58.6 | 31.3 | 53.7 | 14.1 | 37.1 | | VILA-7B | 61.1 | 38.4 | 58.5 | 17.4 | 39.2 | | Sugar | **63.6** | **41.0** | **62.5** | **28.2** | **42.2** | *We also present the results in Table E of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table F

Table F: Ablation study on the effects of MMC4. We evaluated basic visual-language benchmarks, including VQA and GQA. For image-text retrieval, we reported MSCOCO R@5 for both text-to-image(t2i) and image-to-text (i2t). Additionally, we included Mantis for multi-image VQA and VIST R@5 for complex retrieval tasks. | | | basic visual-language benchmarks | | | | | | | image-text retrieval | | multi-image VQA | complex retrieval | | --------------------------- | ----------------- | -------------------------------- | ---- | ------ | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | -------------------- | -------------- | --------------- | ----------------- | | | MMC4 sample ratio | VQA | GQA | VizWiz | SQAI | VQAT | POPE | MMB | t2i | i2t | Mantis | VIST | | VILA-7B | | 79.9 | 62.3 | 57.8 | 68.2 | 64.4 | 85.5 | 68.9 | / | / | 38.4 | / | | + directly fine-tune | 25% | 72.3 | 59.9 | 53.5 | 64.1 | 58.7 | 84.8 | 63.4 | / | / | 38.5 | / | | | 50% | 67.8 | 54.7 | 49.1 | 58.9 | 51.8 | 82.8 | 59.7 | / | / | 38.7 | / | | | 75% | 60.5 | 49.1 | 39.3 | 43.4 | 43.2 | 81.7 | 53.2 | / | / | 38.2 | / | | + fine-tune with our method | 25% | 78.7 | 60.2 | 60.6 | 70.1 | 62.1 | 85.9 | 66.1 | 40.3 | 36.2 | 38.7 | 14.4 | | | 50% | 75.9 | 57.9 | 59.2 | 65.9 | 57.0 | 86.4 | 62.3 | 40.7 | 36.3 | 39.0 | 19.1 | | | 75% | 73.7 | 55.1 | 57.1 | 62.3 | 51.7 | 85.7 | 59.7 | 40.2 | 36.0 | 39.5 | 23.2 | *We also present the results in Table F of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Looking Forward to Your Reply

Dear Reviewer DDMF, Thank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We hope we have addressed the concerns raised in your initial reviews and eagerly await your thoughts and further guidance to refine our work. As the author-reviewer discussion period for NeurIPS 2024 will be over soon, please let us know if you require any additional information or clarification from our end. We are open to engage in further discussions to enhance our submission. Thank you!

Reviewer DDMF2024-08-13

My concerns are well resolved in the rebuttal, and I would like to raise my rating to 6.

Reviewer Lcdg6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

The paper addresses the limitations of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) by proposing a unified approach that combines generative and discriminative training paradigms. This new method leverages interleaved image-text sequences and introduces a structure-induced training strategy. It aims to enhance the MLLM's ability to capture global semantics and fine-grained details, effectively balancing generative and discriminative tasks. The approach uses dynamic sequence alignment within the Dynamic Time Warping framework and integrates a novel kernel for fine-grained semantic differentiation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this method achieves state-of-the-art results in various generative and discriminative tasks.

Strengths

- The paper introduces a novel method that successfully integrates generative and discriminative training paradigms, addressing the weaknesses inherent in each when used independently. - The authors clearly articulate the challenges faced by existing VLMs and provide a well-defined solution.

Weaknesses

- While the paper shows impressive results, there is limited discussion on the potential limitations and areas where the model might underperform. - The paper primarily focuses on specific benchmarks. It would be beneficial to discuss how well the proposed method generalizes to other types of vision-language tasks not covered in the experiments.

Questions

- Can you provide more detailed ablation studies to understand the contribution of each component of the proposed method, such as the dynamic sequence alignment and the GAK?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

- Considering the connection with real-world scenarios is necessary. The authors need to discuss: what requirements might the tasks introduced in the paper have in real-world scenarios?

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table B

Table B: Comparison with baseline on 11 visual-language benchmark with equitable data volume. | | VQA | GQA | VizWiz | SQAI | VQAT | POPE | MMEP | MMEC | MMB | LLaVAWd | MM-Vet | | ------------------- | --------- | ---------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ---------- | --------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 78.5 | 62.0 | 50.0 | 66.8 | 58.2 | 85.9 | 1510.7 | – | 64.3 | 49.0 | 30.5 | | VILA-7B | 79.9 | 62.3 | 57.8 | 68.2 | 64.4 | 85.5 | 1533.0 | 296.1 | 68.9 | 70.0 | 34.9 | | Sugar | 76.0 | 58.7 | 60.4 | 69.4 | 57.5 | 86.6 | 1550.8 | 300.0 | 64.9 | 75.6 | 31.3 | | with equitable data volume | **80.2** | **63.1** | **61.0** | **72.1** | **65.1** | **87.2** | **1550.0** | **309.0** | **69.3** | **76.4** | **36.8** | *We also present the results in Table B of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table C

Table C: DEMON benchmark with equitable data volume. | | MMD | VST | VRI | MMC | KGQA | TRQA | MMR | | -------------------------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 37.5 | 25.2 | 25.9 | 22.2 | 48.6 | 44.9 | 50.3 | | VILA-7B | 47.8 | 25.8 | 13.2 | 17.2 | 60.1 | 42.1 | 50.5 | | Sugar | 51.8 | 34.3 | 32.3 | 16.8 | 64.4 | 65.9 | 51.7 | | with equitable data volume | **54.1** | **34.7** | **34.2** | **23.1** | **65.0** | **68.1** | **53.2** | *We also present the results in Table C of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table D

Table D: Knowledge-based VQA. | | FVQA | WebQA | | ----------------------------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 5.9 | / | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP image | 6.8 | 81.8 | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP text | 7.1 | 79.2 | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP (average) | 7.9 | / | | VILA-7B | 6.4 | / | | VILA-7B + CLIP image | 9.0 | 80.0 | | VILA-7B + CLIP text | 10.2 | 71.2 | | VILA-7B + CLIP (average) | 11.0 | / | | **Sugar** | **6.5** | / | | **Sugar + rag** | **20.7** | **88.7** | *We also present the results in Table D of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table E

Table E: Comparison with baseline in 5 challenging tasks. | | **Multi-image VQA** | | **In-context Interaction** | | **Visual Prompt** | | ------------------- | ------------------- | -------- | -------------------------- | -------- | ------------------ | | | SEED | Mantis | Visual Dialog | VIST-SIS | BLINK | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 58.6 | 31.3 | 53.7 | 14.1 | 37.1 | | VILA-7B | 61.1 | 38.4 | 58.5 | 17.4 | 39.2 | | Sugar | **63.6** | **41.0** | **62.5** | **28.2** | **42.2** | *We also present the results in Table E of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Awaiting Your Feedback

Dear Reviewer Lcdg, Thank you once again for reviewing our submission. We are deeply grateful for your recognition of the value of our work, particularly our proposal of the unified approach that combines generative and discriminative training paradigms to address the challenges of global semantic understanding and detailed semantic capture in existing VLMs. In response to your thoughtful suggestions regarding performance across various vision-language task types and real-world applications, we have conducted additional experiments on 5 more challenging benchmarks, as well as a knowledge-based VQA task of practical significance. These efforts further demonstrate the effectiveness and practical value of our method. Over the past few days, we have carefully addressed the concerns of other reviewers. They have kindly raised their scores and agreed that our approach not only addresses the limitations of VLMs and enhances comprehension capabilities, but also offers emergent insights into complex retrieval tasks and the unified nature of generative and retrieval abilities, which could inspire future work. As the author-reviewer discussion period for NeurIPS 2024 is drawing to a close, please feel free to let us know if you have any remaining concerns or questions. We greatly appreciate your feedback and look forward to any further insights you may have.

Reviewer 4VP35/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper proposed a method for unifying generative training and discriminative training of multi-modal LLMs. Generative training mainly uses auto-regressive formulation while discriminative training mainly performs contrastive representation matching. The goal of this paper is trying to use discriminative training to improve multi-modal LLMs. The paper unifies generative training and discriminative training by introducing a Dynamic Sequence Alignment module which aligns similar text and image data on the hidden states of a multi-modal LLM. In addition, Detailed Semantics Modeling is proposed to effectively distinguish detailed semantics. The paper conducts evaluation on a wide range of benchmarks.

Strengths

The motivation is clear and the paper is easy to follow. The concept of unifying generative training and discriminative training is interesting.

Weaknesses

It's unclear what is dynamic time warping framework. The performance improvement of the proposed method sugar is not significant. Compared with some baselines, such as VILA and LLaVA-1.5, Sugar performs worse than them on many tasks, as shown in Table 1. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed method. This could be meaningless to align a visual token and a text token in an MLLM model since the LLM is trained with next-token prediction instead of contrastive learning like CLIP. The current token is conditioned on previous tokens. I can't think of a reasonable explanation for this mechanism. It **could be** meaningful to align visual tokens. In addition, the experiment results also suggest that this method is not effective as expected. What is the evaluation protocol? Does Sugar train on each benchmark first then evaluate or directly zero-shot evaluation? In the former case, will Sugar lose generative ability after training with discriminative task data?

Questions

What is the training recipe of the proposed method?

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

-

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table B

Table B: Comparison with baseline on 11 visual-language benchmark with equitable data volume. | | VQA | GQA | VizWiz | SQAI | VQAT | POPE | MMEP | MMEC | MMB | LLaVAWd | MM-Vet | | ------------------- | --------- | ---------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ---------- | --------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 78.5 | 62.0 | 50.0 | 66.8 | 58.2 | 85.9 | 1510.7 | – | 64.3 | 49.0 | 30.5 | | VILA-7B | 79.9 | 62.3 | 57.8 | 68.2 | 64.4 | 85.5 | 1533.0 | 296.1 | 68.9 | 70.0 | 34.9 | | Sugar | 76.0 | 58.7 | 60.4 | 69.4 | 57.5 | 86.6 | 1550.8 | 300.0 | 64.9 | 75.6 | 31.3 | | with equitable data volume | **80.2** | **63.1** | **61.0** | **72.1** | **65.1** | **87.2** | **1550.0** | **309.0** | **69.3** | **76.4** | **36.8** | *We also present the results in Table B of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table D

Table D: Knowledge-based VQA. | | FVQA | WebQA | | ----------------------------- | -------- | -------- | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 5.9 | / | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP image | 6.8 | 81.8 | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP text | 7.1 | 79.2 | | LLaVA-1.5-7B + CLIP (average) | 7.9 | / | | VILA-7B | 6.4 | / | | VILA-7B + CLIP image | 9.0 | 80.0 | | VILA-7B + CLIP text | 10.2 | 71.2 | | VILA-7B + CLIP (average) | 11.0 | / | | **Sugar** | **6.5** | / | | **Sugar + rag** | **20.7** | **88.7** | *We also present the results in Table D of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

Table E

Table E: Comparison with baseline in 5 challenging tasks. | | **Multi-image VQA** | | **In-context Interaction** | | **Visual Prompt** | | ------------------- | ------------------- | -------- | -------------------------- | -------- | ------------------ | | | SEED | Mantis | Visual Dialog | VIST-SIS | BLINK | | LLaVA-1.5-7B | 58.6 | 31.3 | 53.7 | 14.1 | 37.1 | | VILA-7B | 61.1 | 38.4 | 58.5 | 17.4 | 39.2 | | Sugar | **63.6** | **41.0** | **62.5** | **28.2** | **42.2** | *We also present the results in Table E of the Rebuttal PDF.*

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Looking Forward to Your Reply

Dear Reviewer 4VP3, Thank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We hope we have addressed the concerns raised in your initial reviews and eagerly await your thoughts and further guidance to refine our work. As the author-reviewer discussion period for NeurIPS 2024 is half past, please let us know if you require any additional information or clarification from our end. We are open to engage in further discussions to enhance our submission.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Awaiting Your Feedback

Dear Reviewer 4VP3, Thank you again for reviewing our submission. As the author-reviewer discussion period for NeurIPS 2024 is nearly over, please let us know if any further information or clarification is needed. We are ready to engage in any further discussions with you! Looking forward to your further feedback!

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Official Comment by Authors

Thank you for increasing the score. Your valuable suggestions greatly contribute to the quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your precious time and valuable suggestions!

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC