When Does Multimodal AI Help? Diagnostic Complementarity of Vision-Language Models and CNNs for Spectrum Management in Satellite-Terrestrial Networks
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866908937040691200 |
|---|---|
| author | Li, Yuanhang |
| author_facet | Li, Yuanhang |
| contents | The adoption of vision-language models (VLMs) for wireless network management is accelerating, yet no systematic understanding exists of where these large foundation models outperform lightweight convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for spectrum-related tasks. This paper presents the first diagnostic comparison of VLMs and CNNs for spectrum heatmap understanding in non-terrestrial network and terrestrial network (NTN-TN) cooperative systems. We introduce SpectrumQA, a benchmark comprising 108K visual question-answer pairs across four granularity levels: scene classification (L1), regional reasoning (L2), spatial localization (L3), and semantic reasoning (L4). Our experiments on three NTN-TN scenarios with a frozen Qwen2-VL-7B and a trained ResNet-18 reveal a clear taskdependent complementarity: CNN achieves 72.9% accuracy at severity classification (L1) and 0.552 IoU at spatial localization (L3), while VLM uniquely enables semantic reasoning (L4) with F1=0.576 using only three in-context examples-a capability fundamentally absent in CNN architectures. Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting further improves VLM reasoning by 12.6% (F1: 0.209->0.233) while having zero effect on spatial tasks, confirming that the complementarity is rooted in architectural differences rather than prompting limitations. A deterministic task-type router that delegates supervised tasks to CNN and reasoning tasks to VLM achieves a composite score of 0.616, a 39.1% improvement over CNN alone. We further show that VLM representations exhibit stronger cross-scenario robustness, with smaller performance degradation in 5 out of 6 transfer directions. These findings provide actionable guidelines: deploy CNNs for spatial localization and VLMs for semantic spectrum reasoning, rather than treating them as substitutes. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_03774 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | When Does Multimodal AI Help? Diagnostic Complementarity of Vision-Language Models and CNNs for Spectrum Management in Satellite-Terrestrial Networks Li, Yuanhang Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence The adoption of vision-language models (VLMs) for wireless network management is accelerating, yet no systematic understanding exists of where these large foundation models outperform lightweight convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for spectrum-related tasks. This paper presents the first diagnostic comparison of VLMs and CNNs for spectrum heatmap understanding in non-terrestrial network and terrestrial network (NTN-TN) cooperative systems. We introduce SpectrumQA, a benchmark comprising 108K visual question-answer pairs across four granularity levels: scene classification (L1), regional reasoning (L2), spatial localization (L3), and semantic reasoning (L4). Our experiments on three NTN-TN scenarios with a frozen Qwen2-VL-7B and a trained ResNet-18 reveal a clear taskdependent complementarity: CNN achieves 72.9% accuracy at severity classification (L1) and 0.552 IoU at spatial localization (L3), while VLM uniquely enables semantic reasoning (L4) with F1=0.576 using only three in-context examples-a capability fundamentally absent in CNN architectures. Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting further improves VLM reasoning by 12.6% (F1: 0.209->0.233) while having zero effect on spatial tasks, confirming that the complementarity is rooted in architectural differences rather than prompting limitations. A deterministic task-type router that delegates supervised tasks to CNN and reasoning tasks to VLM achieves a composite score of 0.616, a 39.1% improvement over CNN alone. We further show that VLM representations exhibit stronger cross-scenario robustness, with smaller performance degradation in 5 out of 6 transfer directions. These findings provide actionable guidelines: deploy CNNs for spatial localization and VLMs for semantic spectrum reasoning, rather than treating them as substitutes. |
| title | When Does Multimodal AI Help? Diagnostic Complementarity of Vision-Language Models and CNNs for Spectrum Management in Satellite-Terrestrial Networks |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03774 |