arXiv Computer Vision
Beyond Blind Compliance: Benchmarking Task Verification in OCR Reasoning
Read the original on arXiv Computer Vision →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1
OCR-MetaReasoning Benchmark: Evaluating the Meta-Reasoning Ability of MLLMs in Text-Rich Image Understanding
arXiv:2608.30678v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Text-rich image understanding requires multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to organize OCR (Optical Character Recognition)-grounded evidence acros...
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 24
How Robust is OCR-Reasoning? Evaluating OCR-Reasoning Robustness of Vision-Language Models under Visual Perturbations
Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on OCR-based benchmarks and increasingly focused on text-rich understanding, but their robustness under controlled visual degradation remains insufficiently understood. This gap is critical for OCR reasoning, where visual corruption can induce OCR errors and structural distortions, thereby introducing uncertainty into the reasoning task.
arXiv AI
Aug 14
How Do VLMs Behave When Blind or Misled? Behavioral Evaluation of VLMs on Scientific Figures
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).
arXiv AI
Oct 7
When to Rethink: Learning Multi-Perspective Self-Verification for Vision-Language Models
The paper introduces MOTIVE, a multi-view self-verification framework for vision-language models that evaluates candidate answers from complementary perspectives and learns a reliability score aligned with correctness. By using this score to decide whether to accept an answer or trigger history-guided rethinking, MOTIVE improves reliability and efficiency compared to existing self-verification and self-correction methods. Extensive experiments on diverse multimodal benchmarks and VLM backbones show consistent performance gains and reduced unnecessary reasoning turns.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12
OccludeBench: Can VLMs Find What's Missing?
OccludeBench is a manually curated benchmark that tests vision‑language models (VLMs) on their ability to recover fully occluded objects from remaining visual evidence. The benchmark distinguishes direct cases—requiring recovery from a specific physical cue such as a shadow or reflection—from inferential cases, which rely on broader scene context. Across five VLMs, accuracy averages 42.7 % on direct cases versus 62.7 % on inferential cases, a 20‑point gap, while humans achieve 63.4 % and 68.5 % respectively with no significant gap. The study introduces OccludeTrace, a four‑stage diagnostic that isolates the failure point, revealing that models struggle most when recovering the relevant object from the full image projection. Interventions such as inpaint‑then‑confront reduce the gap to a statistically non‑significant difference for models with image‑generation capabilities.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 28
PRISM-BENCH: Diagnosing Grounded and Faithful Multimodal Reasoning Beyond Final-Answer Accuracy
PRISM-BENCH is a new benchmark comprising 1,000 expert‑curated vision‑language questions across five under‑represented reasoning categories, each paired with an idealized reasoning trace validated by a second annotator. It introduces diagnostics beyond final‑answer accuracy: a perception probe that attributes about 85% of frontier‑model failures to misperception, and trace alignment that predicts answer correctness with a macro AUROC of 0.66. The benchmark also presents CORE, an efficiency‑aware metric that reorders 24.2% of model pairs relative to accuracy while remaining uncorrelated with response length, revealing that recent gains are driven by recognition rather than spatial grounding.