Knowledge-based visual question answering (KB-VQA) lets vision-language systems answer questions that exceed their parametric knowledge by conditioning a reader on passages retrieved from a Wikipedia-derived knowledge base. In pure-text long-context LLMs, retrieved-context use follows the U-shaped lost-in-the-middle effect of Liu et al. (2024): information at the start and end of context is used, the middle is lost. Whether this transfers to deployed multimodal KB-VQA is open. To close this gap, we design the first controlled probe of reader-side position dependence in multimodal KB-VQA: a gold-position protocol in which only the gold passage’s prompt slot varies within question. We run it on three open-source 7B/8B VLM readers and two KB-VQA benchmarks with up to 20 retrieved passages. The shape flips from U to primacy: gold-at-first beats gold-at-last by 16 to 26 points on all six combinations of reader and benchmark, an effect we call Lost at the End; the gap holds at every scale we test, 3B to 32B, attenuating at 32B. Three targeted ablations narrow the cause. A text-only control that removes the image and changes nothing else shows the primacy is already present in text mode and does not depend on the image. Image-position and distractor-shuffle ablations trace the effect to prompt slot 0 of the instruction-tuned reader, where a second answer-bearing passage placed later is largely wasted. On a frozen reader, three retrieval-side fixes (MMR, oracle reranking, rank-based reordering) all fail to improve on the deployment default. Our findings indicate that recall@k is the wrong metric for deployed KB-VQA and that the remaining headroom sits on the reader side; we release our protocol as a controlled instrument for evaluating reader-side interventions.

The recent explosion of large language models (LLMs), each with its own general or specialized strengths, makes scalable, reliable benchmarking more urgent than ever. Standard practices nowadays face fundamental trade-offs: closed-ended question-based benchmarks (MMLU) struggle with saturation as newer models emerge, while crowd-sourced leaderboards (Chatbot Arena) rely on costly and slow human judges. Recently, automated methods (LLM-as-a-judge) shed light on the scalability, but risk bias by relying on one or a few “authority” models. To tackle these issues, we propose Decentralized Arena (), a fully automated framework leveraging collective intelligence from all LLMs to evaluate each other. It mitigates single-model judge bias by democratic, pairwise evaluation, and remains efficient at scale through two key components: (1) a coarse-to-fine ranking algorithm for fast incremental insertion of new models with sub-quadratic complexity, and (2) an automatic question selection strategy for the construction of new evaluation dimensions. Across extensive experiments across 66 LLMs, attains up to 97% correlation with human judgements, while significantly reducing the cost.