arXiv AI By Yang Chen, Yunwen Li, Yufan Shen, Minghao Liu, Tianyu Zheng, Bin Fu, Qunshu Lin, Zhi Yu, Botian Shi

OmniMapBench: Benchmarking Visual-Centric Reasoning on Diverse Map Documents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 09068v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advancements in LVLMs necessitate robust benchmarks for complex, visually grounded reasoning.

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 AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 10

V-REX: Benchmarking Exploratory Visual Reasoning via Chain-of-Questions

arXiv:2512. 11995v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While many vision-language models (VLMs) are developed to answer well-defined, straightforward questions with highly specified targets, as in most benchmarks, they often struggle in practice with complex open-ended tasks, which usually require multiple rounds of exploration and reasoning in the visual space.

By Chenrui Fan, Yijun Liang, Shweta Bhardwaj, Kwesi Cobbina, Ming Li, Tianyi Zhou
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 18

DocAttriBench: Benchmarking Answer Grounding in Document Visual Question Answering

DocAttriBench (DAB) is a large‑scale benchmark for fine‑grained, element‑level source attribution in Document Visual Question Answering (VQA). It introduces MAPPET, a Mask‑based Perplexity‑Derived Attribution method that uses document layout and language modeling to identify the most informative layout element for each answer. The benchmark contains 237k documents and 296k question‑answer pairs with element‑level grounding, and it evaluates multimodal LLMs on answer accuracy, attribution accuracy, and overall answer quality, revealing that even strong models often fail to localize supporting elements.

By Luca De Grandis (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy), Silvia Cappelletti (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy), William Raccagni (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy), Marcella Cornia (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy), Lorenzo Baraldi (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy), Rita Cucchiara (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy)
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 31

CompareBench: A Benchmark for Visual Comparison Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

The paper introduces CompareBench, a new benchmark suite for evaluating visual comparison reasoning in vision‑language models. It includes TallyBench for object counting, OmniCaps for captioning and tagging, and a 1,200‑question CompareBench that tests quantity, geometric, spatial, and temporal comparisons. Experiments on nine closed‑source models show strong overall performance but persistent weaknesses in counting, spatial reasoning, geometric comparison, and temporal ordering, highlighting visual comparison as a systematic challenge for current VLMs.

By Jie Cai
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 23

CRAG-MM-Diagnostics: Enabling Stage-Wise Analysis of Knowledge-Intensive VQA

Knowledge-Intensive Visual Question Answering (KI-VQA) benchmarks evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as multimodal knowledge assistants by requiring external information beyond a provided image to answer questions. KI-VQA involves multiple sub-problems -referring expression understanding, visual grounding, object recognition, knowledge retrieval, and reasoning-yet existing benchmarks typically report only end-task accuracy, obscuring where failures arise.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 17

DocAttriBench: Benchmarking Answer Grounding in Document Visual Question Answering

DocAttriBench (DAB) is a large-scale benchmark that provides fine-grained, element-level source attribution for Document Visual Question Answering (VQA). It introduces MAPPET, a Mask-based Perplexity-Derived Attribution method that uses document layout and language modeling to identify the most informative layout element for each answer. The benchmark contains 237k documents and 296k question-answer pairs with grounding annotations, and it evaluates multimodal LLMs on answer accuracy, attribution accuracy, and overall answer quality.