PreprintCited by 157Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words

Open access
Rahmanzadehgervi, Pooyan, Bolton, Logan, Taesiri, Mohammad Reza, Nguyen, Anh Totti·2024·arXiv

Abstract

While large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs), e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro, score high on many vision-understanding benchmarks, they are still struggling with low-level vision tasks that are easy to humans. Specifically, on BlindTest, our suite of 7 very simple tasks, including identifying (a) whether two circles overlap; (b) how many times two lines intersect; (c) which letter is being circled in a word; and (d) the number of circles in an Olympic-like logo, four state-of-the-art VLMs are only 58.07% accurate on average. Claude 3.5 Sonnet performs the best at 77.84% accuracy, far from the human expected accuracy of 100%. Across different image resolutions and line widths, VLMs including slow-thinking models consistently struggle with those tasks that require precise spatial information when geometric primitives overlap or are close. Yet, VLMs perform at near-100% accuracy when much more space is added to separate shapes and letters. Linear probing experiments show that vision encoders contain sufficient visual information to solve BlindTest and that language models fail to decode this information into correct answers. Code and data are at: https://vlmsareblind.github.io

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.06581

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies have identified key limitations of VLMs that align with our findings, including biases toward natural image-text pairs, optimization for image description rather than action-oriented reasoning, and challenges with out-of-distribution inputs.

    “Recent studies have identified key limitations of VLMs that align with our findings, including biases toward natural image-text pairs, optimization for image description rather than action-oriented reasoning, and challenges with out-of-distribution inputs (Tan et al., 2024; Tong et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Zang et al., 2024; Guan et al., 2023).”

    From BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games (2024) · cites this paper as Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024

    The Related Work section (p. 23) reports that VLMs struggle with low-level abstract images despite their ability to recognize objects in natural images, supporting the claim of difficulty with inputs unlike familiar natural images. The paper does not establish a bias toward natural image-text pairs or say that VLMs are optimized for image description rather than action-oriented reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Grid-based image observations in BALROG differ significantly from the natural image-text pairs on which many VLMs are trained.

    “These limitations are further exemplified in our benchmark, where grid-based image observations differ significantly from the natural image-text pairs on which many VLMs are trained (Yu et al., 2023; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”

    From BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games (2024) · cites this paper as Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024

    In the task description (p. 5), the paper says VLM vision encoders are trained mostly on natural images; its BlindTest also includes grid images (Appendix K.1, pp. 71–72). It does not examine BALROG observations or establish a significant difference between those observations and the image-text pairs used to train VLMs. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Visual perception is a foundational prerequisite for MLLMs to perform downstream reasoning and environmental interaction.

    “Accurate visual perception serves as a foundational prerequisite for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perform downstream reasoning and environmental interaction (Xingyu Fu et al. 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al. 2024; J.-T. Huang et al. 2025).”

    From PerceptionBench: Evaluating Atomic Visual Perception in Multimodal Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as Rahmanzadehgervi et al. 2024

    The Related Work discussion (p. 22) says that reasoning over abstract shapes assumes the model can first identify them. The Discussion and Conclusion (p. 23) also links low-level visual limitations to difficulties with real-world tasks such as reading street maps. It does not address environmental interaction, and its claim that resolving these limitations *may* be foundational is more tentative than the citing sentence’s categorical wording. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [14]Hughes, J.F.: Computer graphics: principles and practice. Pearson Education (2014)
  2. [18]Kembhavi, A., Salvato, M., Kolve, E., Seo, M., Hajishirzi, H., Farhadi, A.: A dia- gram is worth a dozen images. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 14. pp. 235–251. Springer (2016) https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-family https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-family https://gemini-spatial-example.grantcuster.com/ https://gemini-spatial-example.grantcuster.com/ https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/us/eye-health-and-care/vision-screening.html https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/us/eye-health-and-care/vision-screening.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahmanzadehgervi, P., Bolton, L., Taesiri, M. R., & Nguyen, A. T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400518804
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
vision-language models, geometric shape recognition, spatial reasoning, image resolution effects, letter recognition, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review