The paper introduces Auto-Comp, a fully automated, concept-driven pipeline that generates photorealistic compositional benchmarks for vision‑language models. Auto‑Comp creates paired Minimal and Contextual samples for each concept, enabling isolation of core binding abilities from visio‑linguistic complexity. Evaluations across 25 models reveal consistent failures in attribute and relational binding, with context helping relational tasks but hindering attribute tasks due to visual clutter.
By Cristian Sbrolli, Toshihiko Yamasaki, Matteo Matteucci
arXiv:2609.40245v2 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Robot navigation in dynamic, human-centered environments requires socially-compliant decisions grounded in robust scene understanding. Recent Vision-...
By Nathan Tsoi, Michael J. Munje, Tejas Oberoi, Rishab Maheshwari, Pengen Zheng, Tanush Chauhan, Peter Stone, Joydeep Biswas
STRAND is a new benchmark that tests multimodal large language models’ ability to track objects, their states, and relationships over time in videos. It evaluates intermediate reasoning by breaking queries into sub‑questions and uses Faithful Accuracy to ensure all parts of an answer are correct. The authors also propose an object‑centric framework that builds structured trajectories and shows reduced hallucinations and better temporal consistency compared to existing models.
By Thong Nguyen, Tri Cao, Khoi Le, Cong-Duy Nguyen, Quynh Vo, See-Kiong Ng, Bryan Hooi Kuen-Yew
arXiv:2606. 00987v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have shown strong visual understanding and language-guided grounding abilities, yet their capacity for multi-temporal visual reasoning remains underexplored.
By Bingyu Li, Da Zhang, Tao Huo, Zhiyuan Zhao, Junyu Gao, Xuelong Li
Reliable evaluation of human motion understanding is fundamental to advancing embodied AI, robotics, and animation. However, existing benchmarks suffer from coarse semantic granularity, undifferentiated difficulty, limited annotation quality, and pervasive answer ambiguity, leaving them unable to diagnose where current models fail.
arXiv:2607. 22864v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at visual interpretation but fail on spatial reasoning tasks that humans solve reliably.
By Patrick Rim, Tom Long, Ekta Prashnani, Ruth Rosenholtz, Ben Boudaoud, Peter Xenopoulos, Alex Wong, Joohwan Kim, Jae-Hyun Jung
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-image scenarios requiring complex reasoning across visual contexts. However, current MLLMs remain fundamentally limited by o...
arXiv:2607. 16214v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Image descriptions represented with language models (LMs) predict human brain responses to naturalistic images in high-level visual regions, but the factors driving this predictivity remain unclear.
By Anna Bavaresco, Ina Klari\'c, Raquel Fern\'andez, Marie-Francine Moens
arXiv:2605.26380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have been reported to achieve over 90\% accuracy on fine-grained perception benchmarks. How...
By Jingru Chen, Yiming Liu, Mingtao Chen, Sijie Chen, Richeng Xuan, Liang Yang, Zhichao Hu, Fanyang Lu
The paper introduces MIOH, a fine‑grained benchmark for evaluating object hallucination in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across multiple images. It assesses hallucination through four tasks—existence, counting, attribute, position—using three reasoning patterns (comprehensive, comparative, selective) and three adversarial pressures (visual context scale, perceptual difficulty, contextual bias). Evaluation of 29 models, including GPT‑5 and Gemini‑2.5‑Pro, shows distinct failure patterns, indicating that hallucination arises from integration‑stage limitations rather than just perceptual errors.
By Joonki Min, Chaeyun Kim, Hyungwook Choi, Yejin Kim, Kihyun Kim, Yohan Jo, Joonseok Lee
The paper introduces CAIT, a benchmark of 400 synthetic scenes featuring counter‑intuitive actions that challenge multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Human participants and proprietary models like Claude and Gemini perform well, but standard open‑source instruction‑tuned MLLMs fail, largely due to a strong language prior that overrides contradictory visual evidence. The study shows that Chain‑of‑Thought reasoning can help but introduces new issues, while targeted fine‑tuning and structured prompting can reduce reliance on language priors and improve visual grounding.
By Chen Ling, Tongwei Zhang, Hanqian Li, Nai Ding
arXiv:2607. 06420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual counting is a fundamental pillar of multimodal intelligence, requiring a seamless integration of fine-grained grounding and spatial reasoning.
By Jinhong Deng, Limeng Qiao, Guanglu Wan