VisionQ is a new benchmark for qualitative analysis in computer vision that evaluates vision‑language models (VLMs) on criterion‑conditioned visual discrimination. It is built from over 1,800 peer‑reviewed comparison figures in CVPR and ICCV papers, linking each image crop to author‑stated visual claims through 3,911 hand‑annotated data points. The benchmark includes a 51‑leaf taxonomy of visual criteria, a protocol that hides method identities and reports accuracy per criterion, and a DPO‑tuned Gemma‑4‑E4B judge that improves accuracy on a held‑out test set.
By Vu Dinh Xuan, Duc-Hai Nguyen, Minh-Dung Dao, Vu Quynh Giao, Quang Hong Nguyen, Binh-Son Hua, Barry O'Sullivan, David Murphy, Hoang D. Nguyen
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
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
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
The paper evaluates five vision‑language models on autonomous driving tasks under various visual input conditions, finding that visual corruption affects accuracy and confidence differently across models and datasets. It then tests Visual Evidence Augmentation (VEA) as an inference‑time technique to enhance reliability, observing mixed improvements depending on the model and setting.
By Manasa Mariam Mammen, Priyanka Mary Mammen, Zafer Kayatas, Stefan Wagner
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