Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredGrid-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 measuredVisual 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
- [14]Hughes, J.F.: Computer graphics: principles and practice. Pearson Education (2014)
- [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
Do generative video models understand physical principles?
Motamed, S., Culp, L., Swersky, K., Jaini, P., & Geirhos, R. (2026) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00099 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“Failure scenario”
Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem
Campbell, D., Cohen, J. D., Sabbata, N. D., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00238 · Cited by 104
“…success of VLMs across many tasks, these models still perform poorly on several surprisingly simple multi-object reasoning tasks – such as counting [23, 25, 40], relational image generation [7], relational scene understanding [15, 31], and simple visual analogy tasks [20, 38] – on which humans…”
Visual cognition in multimodal large language models
Schulze Buschoff, L. M., Akata, E., Bethge, M., & Schulz, E. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00963-y · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“Note that this model does not currently feature an option for manually setting the temperature, and the provided documentation does not specify what the default temperature is.”
PyVision: Agentic Vision with Dynamic ToolingPreprint
Zhao, S., Zhang, H.-Q., Lin, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07998 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
“1, an +8.3% gain on Visual Puzzles [43], and a dramatic leap on VLMsAreBlind-mini [41], where PyVision -Claude-4.”
InfluentialMIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understanding
Asadi, M., O'Sullivan, J., Cao, F., Nedaee, T., Rajabalifardi, K., Li, F.-F., Adeli, E., & Ashley, E. A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.21687 · Cited by 74
“To date, work on identifying such biases has concentrated on general visual understanding benchmarks, 22,24,29,30 while medical benchmarks, which we show here to be the most susceptible, remain largely unexamined.”
Seed1.8 Model Card: Towards Generalized Real-World Agency
Seed, B. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20633 · Cited by 67
“8 secures the second place, highlighting its robust perceptual capabilities [25, 56, 68], strong general visual proficiency [12, 37, 89], and consistent multi-image understanding performance [66, 69].”
Perspective-Aware Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Mental Imagery Simulation
Lee, P. Y., Je, J., Park, C., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00863 · Cited by 57
“Numerous evaluations revealed that VLMs struggle on even elementary spatial-perception tasks [18, 50, 51, 62, 65] and higher-level spatial reasoning based on images or videos [26, 32, 39, 58, 60, 72].”
DepthVLA: Enhancing Vision-Language-Action Models with Depth-Aware Spatial Reasoning
Yuan, T.-Y., Liu, Y.-C., Lu, C.-H., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · doi:10.1109/icra57385.2026.11696926 · Cited by 56
AV-Odyssey Bench: Can Your Multimodal LLMs Really Understand Audio-Visual Information?
Gong, K., Feng, K.-T., Li, B., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.02611 · Cited by 51
“DeafTest , a suite of four low-level auditory tasks (examples are illustrated in Figure 1), is introduced to examine the fundamental ability of MLLMs to listen , inspired by the Schwabach test in audiology [26] and BlindTest [61] in vision domain.”
Core Knowledge Deficits in Multi-Modal Language Models
Li, Y.-J., Gao, Q.-Y., Zhao, T., Wang, B.-Y., Sun, H.-R., Lyu, H., Hawkins, R. D., Vasconcelos, N., Golan, T., Luo, D., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10855 · Cited by 47
“Please refer to Appendix A.3 high-level reasoning tasks on similar domains (Paiss et al., 2023; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), demonstrating the long-standing Moravec’s Paradox: tasks that are easy to humans could be extremely difficult to machines and vice versa (Moravec, 1988).”
MARVEL: Multidimensional Abstraction and Reasoning through Visual Evaluation and Learning
Jiang, Y.-F., Zhang, J., Sun, K., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13591 · Cited by 44
“These results indicate that poor performance is not solely attributable to domain shifts, aligning with prior studies [38, 53], which emphasize the inherent complexity of perception tasks that may require multi-task integration.”
Toward Generalizable Evaluation in the LLM Era: A Survey Beyond Benchmarks
Cao, Y.-X., Hong, S.-B., Li, X., Ying, J.-H., Ma, Y., Liang, H.-Y., Liu, Y.-T., Yao, Z., Wang, X.-Z., Huang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18838 · Cited by 42
“Other examples include visual reasoning and designs tasks defined in [118].”
LLaVA-Critic-R1: Your Critic Model is Secretly a Strong Policy Model
Wang, X., Li, C., Yang, J., Zhang, K., Liu, B., Xiong, T., & Huang, F.-R. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00676 · Cited by 38
“…challenging benchmarks: MathVista (Lu et al., 2024), MathVision (Wang et al., 2024a), MathVerse (Zhang et al., 2024b), MMMU (Yue et al., 2024), EMMA (Hao et al., 2025), Blind (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), V ∗ (Wu and Xie, 2023), VisuLogic (Xu et al., 2025), and ZeroBench (Roberts et al., 2025).”
InfluentialVisualToolAgent (VisTA): A Reinforcement Learning Framework for Visual Tool Selection
Huang, Z.-Y., Ji, Y.-Y., Rajan, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.20289 · Cited by 37
Point-RFT: Improving Multimodal Reasoning with Visually Grounded Reinforcement Finetuning
Ni, M., Yang, Z., Li, L., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19702 · Cited by 36
“However, a purely textual CoT may be sub-optimal for vision-centric (Fu et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Hua et al., 2024; Tong et al., 2024) and vision-language tasks (Yu et al., 2023, 2024b; Hao et al., 2025).”
Kwai Keye Team, Yang, B., Wen, B., Liu, C.-Y., Chu, C., Song, C.-R., Rao, C.-L., Yi, C., Li, D., Zang, D., et al. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01949 · Cited by 34
Huang, J., Jia, B., Wang, Y., Zhu, Z., Linghu, X., Li, Q., Zhu, S. C., & Huang, S. (2025) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02288 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“As recent LVLMs evolve to be more powerful and intricate, 2D vision-language (VL) benchmarks have advanced towards meticulously designed evaluation or detailed analysis [6, 19, 41, 43, 44, 68, 74, 87, 89, 90].”
KiVA: Kid-inspired Visual Analogies for Testing Large Multimodal ModelsPreprint
Yiu, E., Qraitem, M., Wong, C., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.17773 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“We may attribute part of the models’ failure in analogical reasoning to an inability to correctly recognize the given transformation T given .”
Guo, X.-M., Tyagi, U., Gosai, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12712 · Cited by 27
“Most existing multimodal benchmarks remain limited to think about images : they focus on passive visual Q&A without active interactions (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Yue et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024b; Lu et al., 2023; Zou et al., 2024; Wu & Xie, 2024; Scale AI, 2025), restrict tool use to…”
ViCrit: A Verifiable Reinforcement Learning Proxy Task for Visual Perception in VLMs
Wang, X.-Y., Yang, Z., Feng, C., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10128 · Cited by 27
“5-VL-72B-Instruct improves from 35.2% to 40.1% on MathVision [57], from 61.3% to 65.8% on VLMsAreBlind [46], and from 45.5% to 49.4% on Charxiv [63].”
InfluentialSlow Perception: Let's Perceive Geometric Figures Step-by-step
Wei, H.-R., Yin, Y., Li, Y.-M., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20631 · Cited by 27
“However, some works like BlindTest [23] show that LVLMs don’t seem to understand images truly; in other words, the models look at images too superficially.”
Ramachandran, R., Garjani, A., Bachmann, R., Atanov, A., Kar, O. F., & Zamir, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01955
“Many works investigate the vision capabilities of MFMs via VQA-style benchmarks that combine visual and textual inputs to generate textual outputs [4, 21, 31, 39, 41, 48, 57, 58, 71].”
UniDriveVLA: Unifying Understanding, Perception, and Action Planning for Autonomous Driving
Li, Y.-K., Zhou, L., Yan, S.-X., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02190 · Cited by 20
“In addition, we evaluate driving-oriented understanding on DriveBench [102], and assess broader multimodal capability on several general VQA benchmarks, including MMStar [15], MMMU [109], RealWorldQA, AI2D, MME [21], VLMsAreBlind [75], and ChartQA [71].”
LongPerceptualThoughts: Distilling System-2 Reasoning for System-1 Perception
Liao, Y.-H., Elflein, S., He, L., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15362 · Cited by 20
“Vision-centric tasks have proven challenging for vision-language models (VLMs), especially when the tasks require object counting and localization, scene understanding, and 2D/3D spatial reasoning (Liao et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Campbell et al., 2024).”
VipAct: Visual-Perception Enhancement via Specialized VLM Agent Collaboration and Tool-use
Zhang, Z., Rossi, R. A., Yu, T., et al. (2024) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.16400 · Cited by 20
“However, despite these advancements, studies (Rahmanzadehgervi et al. 2024; Fu et al. 2024; Tong et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024c) show that SOTA VLMs still struggle with fine-grained visual perception tasks, such as detecting line intersections or object boundaries—tasks that are trivial for humans.”
Mull-Tokens: Modality-Agnostic Latent Thinking
Ray, A., Abdelkader, A., Mao, C., Plummer, B. A., Saenko, K., Krishna, R., Guibas, L., & Chu, W.-S. (2026) · 2026 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition- FINDINGS Track (CVPRF) · doi:10.1109/cvprf71909.2026.00908
“Adjacent to recent work that suggest MLMs overlook the rich information already present in the visual encoders [18, 34, 35, 45], offers a simple approach to help models to use and manipulate visual signals for improved multimodal reasoning performance.”
Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?
Wüst, A., Tobiasch, T. N., Helff, L., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19546 · Cited by 18
“…on which they are based have dramatic shortcomings in the case of reasoning (Nezhurina et al., 2024) and visual perception (Kamath et al., 2023; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Gei-gle et al., 2024; Gou et al., 2024) or their combination (Zhou et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024; Wang et al.,…”
InfluentialVision Language Models See What You Want but not What You See
Gao, Q.-Y., Li, Y.-J., Lyu, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00324 · Cited by 18
“Given recent findings that VLMs struggle with basic visual recognition tasks involving simple shapes and patterns, it is possible that they fail the Three Mountain Task adaptation not due to cognitive limitations but because of visual recognition difficulties (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”
Your other Left! Vision-Language Models Fail to Identify Relative Positions in Medical Images
Wolf, D., Hillenhagen, H., Taskin, B., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.00549 · Cited by 17
“Note: The results show the best-performing marker type per model. as identifying relative positions of objects on images [33,39,15].”
FUNCTO: Function-Centric One-Shot Imitation Learning for Tool Manipulation
Tang, C., Xiao, A.-X., Deng, Y.-H., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11744 · Cited by 17
“However, as indicated in [50], VLMs struggle to provide precise point-level correspondences, particularly for tasks requiring high precision (e.g., hammer - pound - nail ).”
Locality Alignment Improves Vision-Language Models
Covert, I., Sun, T., Zou, J., & Hashimoto, T. B. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11087 · Cited by 17
“Multiple recent works document such failures (Tong et al., 2024b; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), and weaknesses can be seen through benchmarks focused on object localization (Kazemzadeh et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021), counting (Acharya et al., 2019) and relational question-answering (Liu et al.,…”
Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21631 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Visual symbolic mechanisms: Emergent symbol processing in vision language models
Assouel, R., Campbell, D., Bengio, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.15871 · Cited by 16
“VLMs perform very poorly on many tasks that are easy for humans, such as counting or visual search [Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024], and many of these tasks seem to involve the need to accurately bind features in-context.”
Is Your Video Language Model a Reliable Judge?
Liu, M., & Zhang, W. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05977 · Cited by 16
“This is because individual models can exhibit biased outcomes influenced by their training data and architectural constraints, and can be susceptible to hallucinations — generating plausible but incorrect information (Tong et al., 2024; Gervi et al., 2024).”
ContextNav: Towards Agentic Multimodal In-Context Learning
Fu, H., Ouyang, Y., Chang, K.-W., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04560 · Cited by 15
“When the support data involves composite tasks and becomes more complex and noisy (e.g., BlindTest, RealWorld, CharXiv, and MathVision), non-agentic methods are more likely to yield unstable or even degraded performance, whereas ContextNav consistently improves MLLMs’ performance.”
Understanding Language Prior of LVLMs by Contrasting Chain-of-EmbeddingPreprint
Lin, L., Oh, C., Park, S., & Li, S. J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23050 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“In contrast to previous approaches that focus on LVLM output (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Vo et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2025; Luo et al., 2025), we leverage the chain-of-embedding for fine-grained analysis of LVLM, which is defined as a sequence of hidden states across layers, i.e. , ( Z denotes…”
EncQA: Benchmarking Vision-Language Models on Visual Encodings for Charts
Mukherjee, K., Ren, D., Moritz, D., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3634249 · Cited by 15
“Recent investigations have revealed that many VLMs and vision backbones [10,20,55] lack basic visual reasoning abilities such as determining whether lines intersect, how shapes are oriented, and counting items in a visual array .”
Unified Multimodal Understanding via Byte-Pair Visual Encoding
Zhang, W.-P., Feng, Y., Luo, H., Li, Y., Yue, Z.-Y., Zheng, S.-P., & Lu, Z.-Q. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.01206 · Cited by 16
“…by visual encoders differ from the discrete token representations expected by language models; second, the information bottle-neck problem, wherein images compressed through visual encoders may lose substantial detailed information, particularly affecting low-frequency visual patterns [43].”
MultiVerse: A Multi-Turn Conversation Benchmark for Evaluating Large Vision and Language Models
Lee, Y.-J., Lee, B.-K., Zhang, J., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00074 · Cited by 14
MathFlow: Enhancing the Perceptual Flow of MLLMs for Visual Mathematical Problems
Chen, F., Yuan, H.-J., Xu, Y.-Q., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16549 · Cited by 14
“However, existing MLLMs often struggle with mathematical images [8, 40, 52] and extract unreliable information from visual contents, which inevitably hampers In Rt△ABC, ∠C=90°, AC=4, O is a point on BC, and OC=3, E is the midpoint of AO, if a circle is drawn with O as the center and OC as the…”
Physics Context Builders: A Modular Framework for Physical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models
Balazadeh, V., Ataei, M., Cheong, H., Khasahmadi, A. H., & Krishnan, R. G. (2025) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00687 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“However, current VLMs consistently fail at physical reasoning tasks, struggling with basic spatial relationships (e.g., object positioning, counting) [33], object attributes [40], and physical interactions (e.g., stability assessment, dynamics prediction) [10, 14].”
Large Language Models Estimate Fine‐Grained Human Color–Concept Associations
Mukherjee, K., Mohapatra, A., Rogers, T. T., et al. (2026) · Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1111/cogs.70219 · Cited by 13
Visual Structures Helps Visual Reasoning: Addressing the Binding Problem in VLMs
Izadi, A., Banayeeanzade, M. A., Askari, F., Rahimiakbar, A., Vahedi, M. M., Hasani, H., & Baghshah, M. S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22146 · Cited by 1
“They frequently miscount objects in cluttered or overlapping scenes [6, 7], perform poorly in spatial reasoning (e.g., identifying left of or above) [8], and often fail to accurately locate or recognize salient targets during visual search [9].”
[De|Re]constructing VLMs' Reasoning in Counting
Alghisi, S., Roccabruna, G., Rizzoli, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19555 · Cited by 11
“We assess seven state-of-the-art VLMs on the counting task by asking closed-ended questions about an image [10], [17].”
InfluentialOn Erroneous Agreements of CLIP Image Embeddings
Li, S., Koh, P. W., & Du, S. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.05195 · Cited by 11
“…spatial understanding of VLMs (What’sUp (Kamath et al., 2023a) and Embspatial-bench (Du et al., 2024)), and core visual perception abilities (BLINK (Fu et al., 2024) for various aspects like visual correspondence and BlindTestbasic (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024) for recognizing basic patterns).”
Direct Visual Grounding by Directing Attention of Visual Tokens
Esmaeilkhani, P., & Latecki, L. J. (2025) · IEEE Workshop/Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00561 · Cited by 10
“But more alarming is the fact that VLMs struggle with simple, low-level vision tasks like whether two lines intersect or two geometric primitives overlap or are close together [41].”
B-score: Detecting biases in large language models using response history
Vo, A., Taesiri, M. R., Kim, D., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18545 · Cited by 10
“Multi-turn conversation for self-correction Most existing studies rely on single -turn conversations, where the model is queried once per task (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”
Self-citationHarnessing Language for Coordination: A Framework and Benchmark for LLM-Driven Multiagent Control
Anne, T., Syrkis, N., Elhosni, M., Turati, F., Legendre, F., Jaquier, A., & Risi, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Games · doi:10.1109/tg.2025.3564042 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“This suggests that while LLMs can engage in high-level strategic planning, they need significant support systems to translate these plans into tactical actions.”
Words Over Pixels? Rethinking Vision in Multimodal Large Language Models
Jain, A., Mayank Vatsa, A., & Singh, R. (2025) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2025/1164 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Additionally, [Rahmanzadehgervi et al. , 2024] characterized MLLMs as effectively “blind” after they failed simple low-level visual tasks such as counting intersecting lines or circles—tasks trivial for humans with minimal world knowledge.”
Do Vision-Language Models Measure Up? Benchmarking Visual Measurement Reading with MeasureBench
Lin, F., Liu, Y.-S., Xu, H.-Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26865 · Cited by 8
“…reading report persistent weaknesses: SalBench (Dahou et al., 2025) high-11 lights difficulties with low-level perceptual cues, while BlindTest (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), SRBench (Stogiannidis et al., 2025), and VisOnlyQA (Kamoi et al., 2025) expose brittle shape, geometry, and spatial…”
InfluentialHuman-centered evaluation of data visualization understanding in vision-language models
Verma, A., Mukherjee, K., Potts, C., Kreiss, E., & Fan, J. E. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-68119-z · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…visual properties that are generally salient to humans, such as intersections between lines, overlap between shapes, and the number of simple visual elements in a scene [69] — all foundational abilities needed to succeed on the visualization understanding tasks investigated in the present work.”
Visual Instruction Bottleneck Tuning
Oh, C., Li, J.-T., Im, S., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13946 · Cited by 8
“We speculate that Vittle ’s information control prevents the reliance on a partial feature of a single modality [72], e.g., textual feature, which is a common source of hallucination.”
The Unseen Bias: How Norm Discrepancy in Pre-Norm MLLMs Leads to Visual Information Loss
Li, B.-Z., Xue, X.-D., Yang, S., Shi, Y., Chen, X., Guan, Y.-S., Zhang, Y.-X., & Zhang, W.-T. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08374 · Cited by 7
“For instance, many models struggle with the perception of fine-grained visual details (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”
Ground-V: Teaching VLMs to Ground Complex Instructions in Pixels
Zong, Y., Zhang, Q., An, D., Li, Z., Xu, X., Xu, L., Tu, Z., Xing, Y., & Dabeer, O. (2025) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02294 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Recent studies [33, 35, 40] have also identified various visual shortcomings in these generalist VLMs, such as weak spatial reasoning and localization awareness, highlighting the need for enhanced visual processing capabilities.”
Self-alignment of Large Video Language Models with Refined Regularized Preference Optimization
Sarkar, P., & Etemad, A. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12083 · Cited by 7
“The underlying causes of these limitations are multifaceted, encompassing factors such as inadequate spatial and temporal understanding [16, 17, 18], vision-language representational misalignments [26, 22], challenges in processing long visual sequences due to context length constraints [21, 22,…”
InfluentialVisual language models show widespread visual deficits on neuropsychological tests
Tangtartharakul, G., & Storrs, K. R. (2026) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01179-y · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Occlusions impact VLMs’ understanding of objects and text in images 13,16,17 , and VLMs’ interpretations of spatial context—such as relative position, orientation, direction and perspective—can be unreliable 18 .”
InfluentialVision Language Models Cannot Reason About Physical Transformation
Luo, D., Li, Y.-J., Wang, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07109 · Cited by 6
“A growing line of benchmarks focuses specifically on quantity understanding (Rane et al., 2024; Paiss et al., 2023; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Yuksekgonul et al., 2022).”
Self-citationThe Geometry of Representational Failures in Vision Language Models
Savietto, D., Campbell, D., Panisson, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07025 · Cited by 6
“…yet they exhibit puzzling failures on seemingly simple multi-object tasks: miscounting objects, confusing which color belongs to which shape, and producing “illusory conjunctions” that mirror errors observed in human rapid visual processing (Campbell et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”
Synthesizing Visual Concepts as Vision-Language ProgramsPreprint
Wüst, A., Stammer, W., Shindo, H., Helff, L., Dhami, D. S., & Kristian Kersting, B. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.18964
“Studies reveal frequent failures in both perception and reasoning, even on relatively simple tasks [11, 16, 24, 25, 41, 46, 49, 50].”
Understanding Counting Mechanisms in Large Language and Vision-Language Models
Hasani, H., Izadi, A., Askari, F., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17699 · Cited by 6
“Prior work has mainly assessed counting through behavioral accuracy or prompt-based evaluations [3, 5, 19, 20, 30].”
Does visualization help AI understand data?
Li, V. R., Sun, J., & Wattenberg, M. (2025) · Visual .. · doi:10.1109/vis60296.2025.00016 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“[16] shows that LVLMs perform poorly with stacked or stair plots; [18] describes how reducing space between points or words can lead to sharp drop-offs in LVLM visual understanding.”
Perceiving Beyond Language Priors: Enhancing Visual Comprehension and Attention in Multimodal ModelsPreprint
Ghatkesar, A., & Venkatesh, G. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05626 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Despite these striking capabilities, recent work on probing the workings of MLLMs have begun to uncover significant limitations in how current MLLMs integrate visual information [3, 12, 20].”
Wang, L., Wang, Z., Xiao, S., Liu, L., Tsung, F., & Zeng, W. (2025) · Computer Graphics Forum · doi:10.1111/cgf.70110 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The backbone of the agent is based on LLMs rather than vision-language models (VLMs), as VLMs consistently struggle with tasks requiring precise spatial information [RBTN24].”
Evaluating Compositional Scene Understanding in Multimodal Generative Models
Fu, S.-H., Lee, A. J., Wang, A., et al. (2025) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.23125 · Cited by 6
“Interestingly, similar results have also been observed for tasks that do not involve relations, such as counting (Rane et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), or multi-object scene description (Campbell et al., 2024).”
Beyond Captioning: Task-Specific Prompting for Improved VLM Performance in Mathematical Reasoning
Singh, A., Gupta, M., Garg, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05928 · Cited by 6
“However, recent studies reveal that VLMs struggle with simple, low-level visual tasks that humans easily solve, highlighting a need to enhance their visual reasoning and understanding [5].”
BackgroundMethodMOSS-Video-Preview: Toward Real-Time Video Understanding via Cross-Attention
Wang, P.-Y., Tan, C.-K., Zhou, S.-J., Huang, W., Zhou, Q.-R., Huang, Z.-D., Ye, Z., Cheng, J.-J., Qian, X., Chen, Y.-X., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.07639 · Cited by 6
Watch Before You Answer: Learning from Visually Grounded Post-Training
Zhang, Y., Hwang, E., Zhang, H.-S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05117 · Cited by 5
“Since then, many recent studies [41,10,26,52,11,55,46,40,43] have shown that modern VLMs still exhibit clear weaknesses on basic vision-centric tasks, such as spatial reasoning, object counting, geometric perception, visual analogy, and fine-grained recognition.”
What does RL improve for Visual Reasoning? A Frankenstein-Style Analysis
Li, X.-R., Li, M., & Zhou, T.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12395 · Cited by 5
“Prior studies show that vision does not reliably benefit from increased inference length alone (Tian et al., 2025; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2025; Qin et al., 2025), and verbose reasoning can even exacerbate visually grounded errors by amplifying reliance on language priors (Chu et…”
HyperET: Efficient Training in Hyperbolic Space for Multi-modal Large Language Models
Peng, Z.-L., Xu, Z.-Q., Liu, Q.-Y., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20322 · Cited by 5
“This failure mainly stems from the fact that the CLIP’s vision encoder [50] is designed for standard classification tasks and is not equipped to handle the more fine-grained visual understanding tasks required by the language modality [59, 51, 27].”
Reinforcing VLMs to Use Tools for Detailed Visual Reasoning Under Resource Constraints
Kumar, S., Zhao, B., Dirac, L., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14821 · Cited by 5
“However, despite the superb capabilities of state-of-the-art models, VLMs suffer from notable limitations in processing fine-grained visual details [18].”
Understanding Generative AI Capabilities in Everyday Image Editing Tasks
Collins, B., Taesiri, M. R., Bolton, L., Lai, V. D., Dernoncourt, F., Bui, T., & Nguyen, A. T. (2026) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00221
“Analyzing the textual chain-of-thought responses of VLM judges, we find that they are often blind to critical image details [43] and miss differences between image pairs (Appendix G.4.2).”
InfluentialSelf-citationSelf-Evolving Coding Agents: From Digital Programs to Physical-World Intelligence
Gao, H.-C., Zhou, J.-J., Zheng, Z., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.35432 · Cited by 4
“Frontier models still fail simple geometric probes such as whether two lines intersect or how many circles overlap [65].”
To See or To Please: Uncovering Visual Sycophancy and Split Beliefs in VLMs
Hong, R., & Quan, S. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.18373 · Cited by 4
“When a VLM emits a wrong answer, is it Perceptual Blindness (the encoder cannot see the image), a Language Shortcut (the model has the visual signal but ignores it), or * Corresponding author.”
SPARC: Separating Perception And Reasoning Circuits for Test-time Scaling of VLMs
Avogaro, N., Debnath, N., Mi, L., Frick, T., Wang, J., He, Z.-X., Hua, H., Schindler, K., & Rigotti, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06566 · Cited by 4
“Stage 1 (Perception): The What and Where Circuits perform Implicit Relevance Detection (IRD), taking the image and question as input to output relevant crop coordinates (e.g., localizing the woman’s ear).”
Vision Language Models are Confused Tourists
Irawan, P. A., Hanif, I. A., Kautsar, M. D. A., et al. (2025) · 2026 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition- FINDINGS Track (CVPRF) · doi:10.1109/cvprf71909.2026.00174 · Cited by 4
“Failures have been observed in geometric reasoning [17], compositional generalization [2, 9, 15], and bias driven by strong visual or linguistic priors [23].”
Bridging Vision Language Models and Symbolic Grounding for Video Question Answering
Ma, H., Pathak, V., & Wang, D. Z. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.11862 · Cited by 4
“As recent studies [23, 25, 29, 33] highlight, VLMs frequently suffer from hallucination and lack temporal or causal grounding, especially in long or complex videos.”
Hao, G.-F., Alexandre, F., & Yu, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems · doi:10.1109/tcds.2025.3590165 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Despite strong performance on high-level vision tasks, state-of-the-art VLLMs struggled with basic geometric tasks that are straightforward for humans [28].”
Socratic Chart: Cooperating Multiple Agents for Robust SVG Chart Understanding
Ji, Y.-Y., & Wang, H.-H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09764 · Cited by 4
“BlindTest [31] evaluates the visual perception of four MLLMs, GPT-4o, Gemini-1.”
Vision Language Models Know Law of Conservation without Understanding More-or-Less
Luo, D., Lyu, H., Gao, Q.-Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.00332 · Cited by 4
“…what requires a rudimentary conceptual understanding of quantity, at least in these dimensions, which converges with recent studies reporting that major language models and as well as their corresponding vision models fail at simple counting tasks [Rane et al., 2024, Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024].”
ResultThinking With Tools, Not With Pixels: Tool Calls as Text Scaffolds for Visual Reasoning
Shao, J., Yang, Y., Liao, Y.-Y., Shen, Y., Yang, C.-Y., & Xu, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.09682 · Cited by 3
“…from the model’s internal decision process [60, 27, 6, 91]; in VLMs specifically, image-based biases influence answers yet rarely surface in CoT [46, 53, 57, 2], RL training improves accuracy while degrading CoT faithfulness [100], and thinking-mode reasoning amplifies text bias rather than…”
Robot Planning and Situation Handling with Active Perception
Oloo, A., Altaweel, Z., Hayamizu, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.26988 · Cited by 3
“VLMs exhibit systematic failures under occlusion and suboptimal viewpoints [21], yet provide no calibrated uncertainty signal [22].”
Probing Visual Concepts in Lightweight Vision-Language Models for Automated Driving
Theodoridis, N., Mohandas, R., Sistu, G., Scanlan, A. G., Eising, C., & Brophy, T. (2026) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06054 · Cited by 3
“For this reason, understanding the different failure mechanisms is important for proposing meaningful improvements to VLMs.”
InfluentialCan vision language models learn intuitive physics from interaction?
Buschoff, L. M. S., Voudouris, K., Demircan, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06033 · Cited by 3
“…architectures and training meth-ods, VLMs continue to struggle on simple visual tasks that are trivial for any human observer, such as counting objects in a scene or making judgements about their interactions (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Schulze Buschoff et al., 2025a; Balazadeh et al., 2024).”
Attention Guided Alignment in Efficient Vision-Language Models
Mahajan, S., Le, H., Park, H., Farhadzadeh, F., Hayat, M., & Porikli, F. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17793 · Cited by 3
MARBLE: A Hard Benchmark for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning and Planning
Jiang, Y., Chai, Y., Brbić, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22992 · Cited by 3
“Though there have been a few works discussing the shortfalls of visual capabilities of MLLMs, such as [20] and [23], it’s the first time that MLLMs have been reported to perform poorly on such simple structured perception tasks, to the best of our knowledge.”
MTRE: Multi-Token Reliability Estimation for Hallucination Detection in VLMs
Zollicoffer, G., Vu, M., & Bhattarai, M. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11741 · Cited by 3
“…) on benchmark datasets, including MAD-Bench (Li et al., 2023), MM-SafetyBench (Liu et al., 2023b), MathVista (Lu et al., 2023), and a variety of arithmetic-focused questions (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024), demonstrate that leveraging multiple tokens leads to more reliable hallucination detection.”
InfluentialTesting the Limits of Fine-Tuning for Improving Visual Cognition in Vision Language Models
Buschoff, L. M. S., Voudouris, K., Akata, E., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.15678 · Cited by 3
“…domains of intuitive physics and causal reasoning, VLMs have also been shown to have a number of visual deficiencies, and they often struggle with simple visual tasks that would be trivial for a human observer (Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Schulze Buschoff et al., 2025; Balazadeh et al., 2024).”
ZeroKey: Point-Level Reasoning and Zero-Shot 3D Keypoint Detection from Large Language Models
Gong, B., Gomez, D., Hamdi, A., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.02051 · Cited by 3
“Unfortunately, despite this tremendous progress, existing MLLMs still struggle with tasks that require precise points or pixel-level reasoning, such as localization, counting, or salient keypoint detection [8, 37, 56].”
Intriguing Properties of Large Language and Vision Models
Lee, Y.-J., Ko, B., Kim, H.-G., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.04751 · Cited by 3
“For instance, some studies have rigorously evaluated LLVMs on basic perception tasks that are trivially easy for humans by introducing “blind” pairs of image datasets (Tong et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024).”
BackgroundBALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games
Paglieri, D., Cupiał, B., Coward, S., Piterbarg, U., Wolczyk, M., Khan, A., Pignatelli, E., Kuciński, Ł., Pinto, L., Fergus, R., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13543 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“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).”
Diagnosing Visual Ignorance in Vision-Language Models
Zhou, R.-Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, Q., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06890 · Cited by 2
“Rahmanzadehgervi et al. (2024) introduce BlindTest to expose a bottleneck in decoding basic geometric primitives, finding that vision encoders preserve sufficient spatial details but language de-coders fail to translate them accurately.”
Unveiling the Visual Counting Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models
Pang, X., Hou, Y., Wang, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30170 · Cited by 2
“…object recognition, they struggle with precise enumeration, often exhibiting “numerosity blindness” or hallucination when counts exceed small subitizing ranges ( N < 5 ) (Paiss et al., 2023; Hsieh et al., 2023; Rahmanzadehgervi et al., 2024; Guan et al., 2024; Beyer et al., 2024; Guo et al., 2025).”
Wang, H.-M., Xue, Q.-Y., Liu, W.-C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.07082 · Cited by 2
VLM-CAD: VLM-Optimized Collaborative Agent Design Workflow for Analog Circuit Sizing
Pan, G., Wang, S., Lin, Y.-G. A., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07315 · Cited by 2
“"cl_value": “ … ", "rl_value": “ … ", "vdd": “ … ", "cc": “ … ", "l_m1": “ … ", "l_m10": “ … ", "l_m11": “ … ", "l_m12": “ … ",”
Evaluating Small Vision-Language Models on Distance-Dependent Traffic Perception
Theodoridis, N., Brophy, T., Mohandas, R., Sistu, G., Collins, F., Scanlan, A. G., & Eising, C. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/ojvt.2025.3629318 · Cited by 2
“Some recent studies focus exclusively on the perception capabilities of VLMs and show that these remain limited, particularly when it comes to fine-grained image details [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].”
ColorBlindnessEval: Can Vision-Language Models Pass Color Blindness Tests?
Ling, Z., Zhang, H., Zhou, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19070 · Cited by 2
Evaluating Variance in Visual Question Answering Benchmarks
Nikitha, S. R. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops · doi:10.1109/iccvw69036.2025.00442 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Other benchmarks like Pope, TextVQA and VizWiz performed significantly higher than random chance.”
Yadav, A., Liu, L., & Qi, Y. (2025) · International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications · doi:10.1109/dicta68720.2025.11302429 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Prior studies indicate that VLMs often rely heavily on language priors from the LLM component [10] and sometimes make blind guesses rather than deriving conclusions based on visual data [15].”
Can Vision Language Models Learn from Visual Demonstrations of Ambiguous Spatial Reasoning?Preprint
Zhao, B., Dirac, L., & Varshavskaya, P. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.17080 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Recent work has also probed VLMs and found them incapable of solving straightforward tasks that specifically require visual information processing, where answers cannot be guessed from text alone [20].”
BackgroundAudioBERT: Audio Knowledge Augmented Language Model
Ok, H., Yoo, S., & Lee, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10888629 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Indeed, in visual domains, it has been repetitively discovered that common language models do not have sufficient visual commonsense knowledge, such as the color of common objects, leading to a poor performance on visual tasks [5]–[8].”
Background
- Authors
- Rahmanzadehgervi, P., Bolton, L., Taesiri, M. R., & Nguyen, A. T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.06581
- OpenAlex
- W4400518804
- Semantic Scholar
- ad12e9233dad5408da24b5581b05558f27b183f1
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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