IC-492Least-to-most prompting consistently improves MLLM accuracy on the relationship application step compared to direct answering, with GPT-4o improving from 0.9% to 6.44% on VOILA-WD

Nilay Yilmaz, Maitreya Patel, Yiran Lawrence Luo, Tejas Gokhale, Chitta Baral, Suren Jayasuriya, Yezhou Yang

SourceVOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning

Three models were compared on the third step (applying relationship) using L2M prompting versus direct zero-shot answering. L2M prompting, which decomposes the task into sequential sub-problems with the previous answer appended to the next, consistently outperforms direct answering across all models and both datasets. The improvement is most pronounced for GPT-4o on VOILA-WD (6.44% vs. 0.9%) and VOILA-ND (29.03% vs. 16.94%). A supplementary experiment shows that L2M with detailed instructions slightly outperforms chain-of-thought with two examples (6.44% vs. 5.96%) for GPT-4o on the same step.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
GPT-4o (3i): 6.44% (L2M) vs. 0.9% (direct) on VOILA-WD; 29.03% vs. 16.94% on VOILA-ND; CogVLM2 (IC): 0.41% vs. 0.18% (VOILA-WD); 6.39% vs. 3.57% (VOILA-ND); Seed-LLaMA (3i): 2.99% vs. 1.35% (VOILA-WD)
Caveat
Only three models were tested in this comparison; the absolute accuracies remain very low even with L2M prompting.
Model
GPT-4o, CogVLM2 CogVLM2-19B, Seed-LLaMA-8B
Methods
Least-to-Most Prompting [primary], Chain-of-Thought prompting / Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting / CoT prompting / Few-shot Chain of Thought / Few-shot CoT / Chain-of-Thought (CoT-S) / CoT-bag prompting / Few-shot CoT prompting / Rationale prompting / Zero-shot CoT prompting / Wei et al. (2022) chain-of-thought prompting [compared-to]
Related work
Least-to-Most Prompting [builds-on]
Related findings
IC-489, IC-490, IC-491
Extraction
automatic-extraction