Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) requires Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to identify and combine fine-grained visual cues with retrieved textual evidence. However, retrieval often introduces noisy and partially relevant content, while images contain distracting visual regions, causing pretrained MLLMs to overlook the evidence that actually supports the answer. To address this, we introduce Look Twice (LoT), a training-free inference-time framework that turns the model's own internal attention into an explicit multimodal evidence-selection mechanism. LoT first leverages the model's internal attention patterns to identify query-relevant image regions and textual sentences, filters attention sinks and distracting content, and reformulates the input to explicitly highlight the selected evidence before answer generation. The method requires no parameter updates, auxiliary models, or architectural modifications. Across four KB-VQA benchmarks and ten off-the-shelf MLLMs ranging from 2B to 38B parameters, LoT improves every evaluated backbone, with average gains of up to +12.5 accuracy points. It also provides further gains when combined with established context-refinement strategies, yielding additional improvements over already refined inputs. These results establish LoT as a general and effective mechanism for enabling pretrained MLLMs to exploit available multimodal evidence more accurately. Source code is publicly available at https://aimagelab.github.io/LoT/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Given an image, a question, and retrieved documents, an MLLM may overlook relevant multimodal evidence and answer incorrectly. LoT uses the model’s internal attention to identify relevant visual and textual content, then highlights the multimodal evidence to improve answer generation.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed Look Twice (LoT). LoT inspects the MLLM internal attention to identify relevant visual regions and textual evidence, discards irrelevant content, and highlights the selected cues for final answer generation.
Figure 3: Qualitative examples of our visual evidence selection pipeline (right). In the attention map (left), irrelevant visual tokens (orange) exhibit disproportionately high activations in specific hidden-state dimensions, while relevant tokens (blue) remain moderate. The BOS token, known to act as an attention sink in LLMs, shows a similar pattern. In LoT, tokens with sink score exceeding a threshold τ are filtered.
E-VQA
InfoSeek
OVEN
ViQuAE
Single
All
U-Q
U-E
All
All
All
Avg
Small-scale MLLMs (2-4B)
▼ Qwen2-VL-2B
17.5
16.0
5.3
5.6
5.4
1.2
15.0
9.4
+ LoT (Ours)
20.5
18.5
21.8
21.4
21.6
14.5
29.1
20.9
Δ +11.5
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
30.3
28.0
22.6
22.2
22.4
11.6
22.9
21.2
+ LoT (Ours)
32.6
30.2
30.3
29.8
30.1
29.5
34.7
31.1
Δ +9.9
Table 1: Performance comparison on KB-VQA benchmarks. For each backbone, we compare the original zero-shot retrieval-augmented model with the same model augmented with LoT. Results are reported on the E-VQA test set, InfoSeek validation set, OVEN validation set, and ViQuAE test set. Avg denotes the average score across the four “All” columns; improvements over baseline are in green.
Figure 4: Qualitative examples of LoT highlighting query-relevant visual regions and textual evidence, enabling the model to generate the correct answer.
E-VQA
InfoSeek
Base
+ LoT
Base
+ LoT
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
28.0
30.2
22.4
30.1
Δ +4.95
+ CoT ( Wei et al. 2022 )
28.1
30.1
29.5
30.1
Δ +1.30
+ Critic ( Compagnoni et al. 2025 )
30.1
31.3
30.6
31.1
Δ +0.85
+ Critic ( Compagnoni et al. 2025 )
33.3
34.4
33.5
34.4
Δ +1.00
+ EchoSight Re-ranker ( Yan and Xie 2024 )
29.8
31.1
30.7
32.0
Δ +1.30
Table 2: Performance comparison of inference-time strategies combined with LoT. Gray rows denote zero-shot strategies that require no additional trained components.
Highlight
E-VQA
InfoSeek
OVEN
ViQuAE
Visual
Textual
Single
All
U-Q
U-E
All
All
All
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
-
-
30.3
28.0
22.6
22.2
22.4
11.6
22.9
✓
-
31.6
29.4
24.1
23.7
23.9
16.6
23.6
-
✓
31.7
29.1
29.8
29.2
29.5
28.0
34.6
+ LoT (Ours)
✓
✓
32.6
30.2
30.3
29.8
30.1
29.5
34.7
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-7B
-
-
32.1
30.2
23.9
25.1
24.5
20.2
36.4
Table 3: Ablation evaluating visual and textual highlighting independently and jointly across KB-VQA benchmarks.
Figure 5: Performance on E-VQA (All) under different evidence-availability (left) and retrieval-depth settings (right).
E-VQA
InfoSeek
Single-Hop
All
Unseen-Q
Unseen-E
All
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
30.3
28.0
22.6
22.2
22.4
Random
22.2
21.2
22.2
22.1
22.1
Leading
24.1
23.0
28.2
28.6
28.4
BM25
30.6
28.2
28.5
28.0
28.3
Retrieval Round-Robin
22.6
21.7
24.2
25.2
24.7
Table 4: Comparison of LoT with budget-matched non-attention-based selection strategies on E-VQA and InfoSeek. Textual methods retain 30 % of the context, while visual methods retain 46 % of the image area.
E-VQA
InfoSeek
Single
All
U-Q
U-E
All
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B (only input image)
30.3
28.0
22.6
22.2
22.4
w/ bbox on input image
29.6
27.4
22.8
22.2
22.5
w/ only selected evidence
30.7
28.3
22.7
22.3
22.5
w/ input image and evidence (no highlight)
30.0
27.8
21.4
20.8
21.2
w/ highlight on both input image and evidence
31.6
29.3
23.0
22.4
22.7
Table 5: Ablation study on visual highlighting strategies.
E-VQA
InfoSeek
Single
All
U-Q
U-E
All
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
30.3
28.0
22.6
22.2
22.4
w/ highlight on all retrieved content
30.6
28.2
24.1
23.5
23.8
w/ highlight on entire passage
31.2
28.8
25.0
23.9
24.4
w/ highlight on evidence only (no discard)
31.7
29.1
24.5
24.0
24.2
w/ keep only evidence
30.5
28.5
27.0
26.3
26.7
Table 6: Ablation study on textual highlighting strategies.
RealWorldQA
V-Star
TextVQA
ChartQA
Avg
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-3B
59.1
66.5
62.5
79.1
66.8
+ LoT (Ours)
61.7
71.2
66.4
79.5
69.7
Δ +2.9
▼ Qwen3-VL-4B
66.7
70.2
74.7
80.7
73.1
+ LoT (Ours)
71.6
78.5
76.5
82.3
77.2
Δ +4.2
▼ Qwen2.5-VL-7B
65.0
71.2
75.7
77.0
72.2
+ LoT (Ours)
67.5
73.3
77.9
79.4
74.5
Δ +2.3
Table 7: Performance comparison on standard MLLM benchmarks. For each backbone, we compare the original model with the same model augmented with LoT using only visual highlighting. Results are reported on RealWorldQA, V-Star, TextVQA, and ChartQA. Avg denotes the average score across the four benchmarks; improvements over the baseline are shown in green.
Dataset
Questions
Entity Identified
Fallback
E-VQA
5,750
5,746 (99.93%)
4 (0.07%)
InfoSeek
71,335
71,335 (100.00%)
0 (0.00%)
OVEN
3,291
2,995 (91.01%)
296 (8.99%)
ViQuAE
1,257
1,232 (98.01%)
25 (1.99%)
Overall
81,633
81,308 (99.60%)
325 (0.40%)
Table 8: Coverage of the dataset-specific entity-selection procedure. A fallback occurs when no valid entity is identified and the last input token is used to extract the attention map.
Model
Sink Dimensions
Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct
1073, 534, 940
Qwen2-VL-7B-Instruct
2570, 458
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
318, 1874, 1819
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
458, 2570
Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct
4675, 3094
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
0
Table 9: Attention-sink dimensions filtered for each MLLM.
α
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
Avg. Sentences
0.25
32.14
57.72
93.89
5.86
0.50
32.61
62.07
77.62
2.03
0.75
31.36
68.97
60.44
1.04
Table 10: Selection of α on the E-VQA validation split using Qwen2.5-VL-3B.
αdrop
Accuracy
Context reduction
α/2.0
31.59
74.47%
α/3.0
32.61
70.45%
α/4.0
31.92
66.71%
Table 11: Selection of αdrop on the E-VQA validation split using Qwen2.5-VL-3B.
Figure 6: Qualitative examples of attention maps filtering.
Method
IoU ↑
Coverage ↑
Precision ↑
Center Distance ↓
Min-Max Coordinates
0.352
0.891
0.500
0.090
Morphological Filtering
0.399
0.582
0.716
0.084
Weighted Centroid
0.487
0.814
0.626
0.071
Table 12: Comparison of bounding box extraction methods for target object localization.
τ
β
IoU ↑
Acc@IoU ≥ 0.5 ↑
10
1
0.267
0.023
10
2
0.461
0.360
10
3
0.405
0.170
25
1
0.317
0.045
25
2
0.489
0.441
25
3
0.388
0.090
Table 13: Analysis of bounding-box extraction hyperparameters applied to the filtered attention maps. We report mean IoU and localization accuracy at IoU≥0.5 .
Table 14: Effect of attention-sink filtering on visual evidence localization.
E-VQA
Layer Range
Single-Hop
All
Text Highlighting
First half
21.6
21.3
Middle half
30.1
28.4
Last half
35.3
32.6
Visual Highlighting
Table 15: Layer-range ablation on the E-VQA validation split using Qwen2.5-VL-3B. When varying the textual range, visual highlighting is fixed to the middle half; when varying the visual range, textual highlighting is fixed to the last half.
Figure 7: Qualitative examples of LoT highlighting query-relevant visual regions and textual evidence, enabling the model to generate the correct answer on E-VQA.
Knowledge-based visual question answering combines image understanding with external or learned knowledge to answer questions requiring facts beyond the image.
Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) aims to answer queries that necessitate reasoning over external knowledge sources beyond the visual content. Typically, current methods fuse multimodal features to retrieve external information, subsequently leveraging Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to derive answers from the retrieved evidence. However, these methods often struggle to capture structural associations within complex contexts to effectively filter noise. Furthermore, they frequently fail to ensure that the reasoning process remains strictly faithful to the retrieved evidence. To address these challenges, we propose SAFE-G, a Structure-Aware Faithful Evidence-guided Generation framework, which enables precise evidence localization and trustworthy reasoning. Specifically, we first employ a coarse-grained hybrid search fusing visual and textual modalities to recall candidate documents, and subsequently implement a structure-aware fine-grained graph retrieval that captures structural dependencies to filter noise and pinpoint precise evidence. Moreover, we introduce a reinforcement learning (RL) strategy with an evidence-grounded reward that assigns credit to correct answers only when the selected evidence is correct. This strict alignment constraint compels the model to anchor its response in the retrieved context, effectively enhancing its capability to locate evidence via multimodal features and perform faithful reasoning. Extensive experiments on the Encyclopedic-VQA and InfoSeek benchmarks demonstrate that SAFE-G outperforms prior methods by a margin of 8.9% and 3.5%, substantially enhancing the overall reasoning accuracy. Our source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/MINE-USTC/SAFE-G.
Long Shu, Shuochen Liu, Wei Chen +4
State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, University of Science and Technology of China China · NIO China
Knowledge-Based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) requires grounding visual queries to external knowledge beyond directly observable content in images. While recent multi modal large language models (MLLMs) show strong perceptual abilities, they struggle on KB-VQA tasks requiring groundings from both fine-grained entity and evidence levels. Most existing multi-modal retrieval augmented generation (MM-RAG) methods tightly couple entity discrimination and section-level evidence ranking into a single re-ranking stage, leading to high cost and limited generalization. In this work, we revisit existing MM-RAG solutions from a workflow perspective and argue both entity-level and fact-level groundings are key bottlenecks. We observe that although MLLMs often fail under open-ended entity naming, they can better identify the correct entity when selecting from a small set of candidate names. Based on this insight, we propose a simple and training-free identify-before-answer IBA framework that decouples entity identification from section-level re-ranking. Our approach prompts an MLLM to select high-confidence entities using only candidate names, followed by an off-the-shelf textual re-ranker for evidence selection. Experiments on Encyclopedic-VQA and InfoSeek show that our method consistently outperforms fine-tuned multi-modal re-ranking baselines while reducing training and inference complexity. Additional analyses reveal that the improvements arise not only from better entity identification, but also from selecting more informative evidence once correct entity is fixed. Our implementation is made public to ease reproducibility.
Qian Ma, Qiong Wu, Zhengyi Zhou +1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute · AT&T Chief Data Office
Multi-modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a highly effective paradigm for Knowledge-Based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA). Despite recent advancements, prevailing methods still primarily depend on images as the retrieval key, and often overlook or misplace the role of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), thereby failing to leverage their potential fully. In this paper, we introduce WikiSeeker, a novel multi-modal RAG framework that bridges these gaps by proposing a multi-modal retriever and redefining the role of VLMs. Rather than serving merely as answer generators, we assign VLMs two specialized agents: a Refiner and an Inspector. The Refiner utilizes the capability of VLMs to rewrite the textual query according to the input image, significantly improving the performance of the multimodal retriever. The Inspector facilitates a decoupled generation strategy by selectively routing reliable retrieved context to another LLM for answer generation, while relying on the VLM's internal knowledge when retrieval is unreliable. Extensive experiments on EVQA, InfoSeek, and M2KR demonstrate that WikiSeeker achieves state-of-the-art performance, with substantial improvements in both retrieval accuracy and answer quality. Our code will be released on https://github.com/zhuyjan/WikiSeeker.
Yingjian Zhu, Xinming Wang, Kun Ding +3
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems (MAIS), Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Science and Technology Beijing