The paper introduces a controlled benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on key‑value pair extraction from documents with varying levels of OCR noise. It tests 136 configurations across five instruction‑tuned open‑weight LLMs, three datasets, and four text‑quality conditions, using deterministic decoding to generate 17,688 document‑level inferences. The study finds that clean‑text performance does not reliably predict real‑world robustness, model rankings can reverse under noisy conditions, and few‑shot demonstrations do not always improve accuracy, highlighting reliability risks in OCR‑to‑LLM pipelines.
By Zahra Anvari
arXiv:2608. 11847v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) integrate visual perception with language generation, enabling responses that span image understanding and complex reasoning.
By Beomsik Cho, Jinhyeong Kim, Dongseok Lee, Jaehyung Kim
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) integrate visual perception with language generation, enabling responses that span image understanding and complex reasoning. However, LVLMs do not just inherit the text-level hallucinations; they also hallucinate against the image, producing fluent responses ungrounded in what they see.
Vision2Code is a new benchmark for image-to-code generation that covers 15 domains and 539 test examples without relying on reference source code. It evaluates generated programs by executing them and comparing rendered outputs to the original images using domain‑specific rubrics, yielding scores that correlate better with human judgments than generic metrics. The study shows domain variability in model performance and demonstrates that the scoring method can improve fine‑tuning of models like Qwen3.5‑9B and Phi‑4‑MM via rejection sampling.
By Ajay Vikram Periasami, Junlin Wang, Bhuwan Dhingra
arXiv:2603.07119v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Recent text-to-image models have improved global realism, but text rendering remains a persistent failure mode: images may look convincing overall,...
By Kirill Koltsov, Aleksandr Gushchin, Anastasia Antsiferova, Dmitriy Vatolin
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:2610.21758v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence have accelerated video generation technologies. However, AI-generated videos (AIGVs) remain susce...
By Kehao Zhou, Yixuan Li, Yuxuan Jiang, Fan Zhang
arXiv:2603.08064v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Most evaluations of generative models rely on feature-distribution metrics such as FID, which operate on continuous recognition features that are e...
By Zexi Jia, Pengcheng Luo, Yijia Zhong, Jinchao Zhang, Jie Zhou
arXiv:2605. 00924v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-generated content (AIGC) detectors are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as academic integrity screening, yet their reliability rests on a fundamental paradox: as language models are trained on human-written corpora, the statistical boundary between AI and human writing will inevitably dissolve as models improve.
By Guantian 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
Visual regression testing (VRT) is a standard quality assurance step in modern software release pipelines. On every change, it re-renders user interface (UI) screenshots, compares each one against an approved baseline image, and routes any detected difference to a human reviewer who decides whether it is an intended update or an unintended regression.
arXiv:2607. 06254v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deepfake image detection is currently served by three fundamentally different paradigms: commercial APIs, zero-shot vision-language models (LLMs), and open-source detectors.
By Sharayu N. Deshmukh, Md Rashidunnabi, Nelton Tiago Gemo, Kurundkar G. D., Mahamune M. R., Nilesh K. Deshmukh