PreprintCited by 2Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs

Open access
Huang, Jen-Tse, Dai, Dasen, Huang, Jen-Yuan, Yuan, Youliang, Liu, Xiaoyuan, Wang, Wenxuan, Jiao, Wenxiang, He, Pinjia, Tu, Zhaopeng, Duan, Haodong·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Humans develop perception through a bottom-up hierarchy: from basic primitives and Gestalt principles to high-level semantics. Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are trained directly on complex downstream tasks. Does it guarantee their performance on these foundational visual capabilities? To systematically investigate this gap, we introduce VisFacor, a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from FRCT, a well-established cognitive psychology assessment spanning four domains of human visual cognition. Furthermore, we design algorithms to automatically construct and validate unlimited test cases with controllable difficulty. Using VisFacor, we evaluate 39 frontier MLLMs, including both proprietary (e.g., GPT, Gemini) and open-source (e.g., LLaMA, Qwen) models. The best model achieves a score of only 55.9%. Analysis reveals good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94) and construct validity (compared to existing vision benchmarks). Models consistently fail on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination, regardless of model size or prompting strategy. These findings suggest that performance improvements on existing general benchmarks might represent castles in the air instead of a genuine mastery of human-like visual cognition.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.16435

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 J.-T. Huang et al. 2025

  • Frontier MLLMs continue to struggle with basic visual perception.

    “these studies show that frontier MLLMs continue to struggle with basic visual perception”

    From PerceptionBench: Evaluating Atomic Visual Perception in Multimodal Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as J.-T. Huang et al. 2025

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Huang, J.-T., Dai, D., Huang, J.-Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, X., Wang, W., Jiao, W., He, P., Tu, Z., & Duan, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6948431963
Cited by
2
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
multimodal large language models, mental rotation, figure-ground discrimination, automated test generation, model evaluation

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