Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Reading, Not Thinking: Understanding and Bridging the Modality Gap When Text Becomes Pixels in Multimodal LLMs

Kaiser Sun, Xiaochuang Yuan, Hongjun Liu, Chen Zhao, Cheng Zhang, Mark Dredze, Fan Bai · Mar 10, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens. We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages. We find that the modality gap is task- and data-dependent. For example, math tasks degrade by over 60 points on synthetic renderings, while natural document images often match or exceed text-mode performance. Rendering choices such as font and resolution are strong confounds, with font alone swinging accuracy by up to 47 percentage points. To understand this, we conduct a grounded-theory error analysis of over 4,000 examples, revealing that image mode selectively amplifies reading errors (calculation and formatting failures) while leaving knowledge and reasoning errors largely unchanged, and that some models exhibit a chain-of-thought reasoning collapse under visual input. Motivated by these findings, we propose a self-distillation method that trains the model on its own pure text reasoning traces paired with image inputs, raising image-mode accuracy on GSM8K from 30.71% to 92.72% and transferring to unseen benchmarks without catastrophic forgetting. Overall, our study provides a systematic understanding of the modality gap and suggests a practical path toward improving visual text understanding in multimodal language models.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

GSM8K

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Motivated by these findings, we propose a self-distillation method that trains the model on its own pure text reasoning traces paired with image inputs, raising image-mode accuracy on GSM8K from 30.71% to 92.72% and transferring to unseen benchmarks without catastrophic forgetting."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Rendering choices such as font and resolution are strong confounds, with font alone swinging accuracy by up to 47 percentage points."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Math

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

GSM8K

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens.
  • We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages.
  • We find that the modality gap is task- and data-dependent.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning GSM8K and MATH.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages.
  • Rendering choices such as font and resolution are strong confounds, with font alone swinging accuracy by up to 47 percentage points.
  • Motivated by these findings, we propose a self-distillation method that trains the model on its own pure text reasoning traces paired with image inputs, raising image-mode accuracy on GSM8K from 30.71% to 92.72% and transferring to unseen…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages.
  • Motivated by these findings, we propose a self-distillation method that trains the model on its own pure text reasoning traces paired with image inputs, raising image-mode accuracy on GSM8K from 30.71% to 92.72% and transferring to unseen…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: GSM8K

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.