arXiv:2607. 24354v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic prompt optimization (APO) has been widely adopted to adapt vision-language models (VLMs) to downstream tasks without weight updates, yielding promising results.
By Haoyue Liu, Xiaoyu Ma, Ye Chen, Yuexian Zou, Xiaoying Tang
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.
By Rongyu Yu, Ke Niu, Fengxiang He
Automated evaluation is essential for scaling generative 3D systems, where exhaustive human review is costly and slow. However, the reliability of an automated judge depends on the entire evaluation pipeline, not only the underlying vision-language model (VLM), but also how assets are rendered, what visual evidence is provided, how the task is specified, and how human reference labels are constructed.
arXiv:2606. 18451v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Single-image-to-3D generators are improving quickly, but there is no agreed, human-free way to tell whether one generated mesh is better than another.
By Ali Asaria, Tony Salomone, Deep Gandhi
arXiv:2608. 13267v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks emphasize perception and reasoning accuracy (how well VLMs describe and reason about what they see in an image), with limited attention to behavioral reliability under uncertainty (how they behave when visual evidence is missing or misleading).
By Paul Osemudiame Oamen, Owusu-Banahene Osei, Ananya Mukherjee, Christian Greisinger, Steffen Eger, Pius Onobhayedo, Wei Zhao
The paper introduces a dual‑judge evaluation protocol for vision‑language models in legally grounded tasks, pairing a 0‑10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic‑equivalence judge. Using a controlled UK traffic‑sign interpretation task, the authors analyze 4,680 evaluations across visibility and occlusion conditions, finding moderate association between judges and an asymmetric Type II error pattern that is most pronounced under heavy occlusion. The protocol requires only one additional LLM call and reveals quality‑trustworthiness signals that single‑judge methods miss.
By Su Myat Noe, Ha Thanh Nguyen, May Myo Zin, Ken Satoh
arXiv:2606. 26904v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video reasoning language models implicitly assume that every input frame is equally reliable.
By Yangfan He, Yujin Choi, Jaehong Yoon
arXiv:2607. 10826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated evaluation is essential for scaling generative 3D systems, where exhaustive human review is costly and slow.
By Zhenyu Zhao, Nanshan Jia, Jihyeon Je, Yifu Tang, Alvin Chan, Michael Spedden, Michael V. Palleschi, Sui Huang, Jingshen Wang, Zeyu Zheng
arXiv:2606. 16082v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have been increasingly adopted for Image Quality Assessment (IQA).
By Guanyi Qin, Junjie Zhang, Chunming He, Yibing Fu, Jie Liang, Tianhe Wu, Lei Zhang
arXiv:2606. 20244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often underperform on evidence intensive tasks because decisive visual evidence are small, localized, and easy to overlook, leading to failures in evidence readout even when high-level reasoning is intact.
By Bo Yin, Xiaobin Hu, Chengming Xu, Ruolin Shen, Mo Yang, Jiangning Zhang, Peng-Tao Jiang, Cheng Tan, Shuicheng YAN
arXiv:2603. 00546v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains.
By Zeyu Chen, Huanjin Yao, Ziwang Zhao, Min Yang
The paper introduces DoublesEval, a diagnostic framework that uses professional doubles badminton to test visual‑language models’ ability to reason about dynamic multi‑agent interactions. It decomposes rallies into key moments and evaluates models across four dimensions—atomic recognition, intra‑segment composite understanding, cross‑segment causal reasoning, and high‑level tactical abstraction—highlighting specific reasoning failures. The authors also propose TacticCheck, a lightweight consistency checker that improves performance without retraining the models, yet significant gaps remain in tactical reasoning.
By Jintao Cheng, Weibin Li