arXiv Computation and Language By Jiayuan Ma, Yuqi Lu, Weiyang Guo, Chenrui Wang, Junyi Shu, Xuebo Liu, Min Zhang, Jing Li

FPCO-Dialog: A Multi-Turn False-Premise Benchmark for Correction and Cooperation in Vision-Language Models

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

FPCO-Dialog is a new benchmark designed to evaluate how vision‑language models correct and cooperate when faced with repeated false premises in multi‑turn dialogues. The dataset contains 1,080 images and 10,800 question turns, organized by visual complexity, object category, and false‑premise class, and follows a 10‑turn protocol where a correct dialogue prefix is followed by repeated false‑premise expressions. Using a model‑agnostic protocol and the CorrTP@K correction‑rate metric, the benchmark reveals significant differences among 20 commercial and open‑source VLMs in their correction tendencies, turn‑wise dynamics, and responses to different false‑premise types.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Jul 21

Seeing What Is Actually There: PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools for Counterfactual Evaluation of Agentic Visual Evidence in VLMs

arXiv:2607. 16311v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself.

By Jingyu Sun, Jiachen Tu, Yuyang Xue, Yaoxin Jiang, Guoyi Xu, Zhengtao Yao, Rui Qian, Yizheng Sun, Hongpeng Zhou, Jingyuan Sun, Yan Lin
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 26

DoublesEval: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Tactical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Professional Doubles Badminton

The paper introduces DoublesEval, a diagnostic framework that uses professional doubles badminton to test visual‑language models’ ability to reason about dynamic multi‑agent interactions. It decomposes rallies into key moments and evaluates models across four dimensions—atomic recognition, intra‑segment composite understanding, cross‑segment causal reasoning, and high‑level tactical abstraction—highlighting specific reasoning failures. The authors also propose TacticCheck, a lightweight consistency checker that improves performance without retraining the models, yet significant gaps remain in tactical reasoning.

By Jintao Cheng, Weibin Li