arXiv:2602. 18094v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing Visual-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved significant progress by being trained on massive-scale datasets, typically under the assumption that data are independent and identically distributed (IID).
By Ling Lin, Yang Bai, Heng Su, Congcong Zhu, Yaoxing Wang, Yang Zhou, Huazhu Fu, Jingrun Chen
arXiv:2607. 18695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A popular route to interpretable zero-shot classification asks a large language model (LLM) to describe each class name and prompts CLIP with the resulting descriptors.
By Gautam Rajendrakumar Gare, Jia Shi, Zhiqiu Lin, Deepak Pathak, John Galeotti, Deva Ramanan
arXiv:2607. 13305v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark accuracy in video large language models (LLMs) is often treated as evidence of visual understanding.
By Jae Joong Lee
arXiv:2606. 06890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently rely on language priors, producing confident answers that are weakly grounded in visual evidence.
By Runyu Zhou, Qi Zhang, Qixun Wang, Yisen Wang
arXiv:2606. 24716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to extract interpretable concepts from vision and vision language models, yet existing evaluation methods largely rely on proxy metrics or qualitative inspection rather than measuring semantic correspondence.
By Jonas Klotz, Cassio F. Dantas, Pallavi Jain, Diego Marcos, Beg\"um Demir
Pathology vision-language models (VLMs) have recently progressed rapidly and are commonly evaluated by answer accuracy on pathology VQA benchmarks. However, we dig into current evaluations and identify three overlooked issues: 1) Visual evidence is not always necessary.