arXiv Computer Vision
VIABLE: A Visually Impaired Assistance Benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
Read the original on arXiv Computer Vision →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Oct 2
VisionQ: VLM-as-a-Judge Taxonomy, Dataset and Benchmark for Qualitative Analysis in Computer Vision
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 28
Are Prompt Optimizers Blind? Cross-Modal Visual Feedback for Automatic Prompt Optimization
arXiv:2607. 24354v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic prompt optimization (APO) has been widely adopted to adapt vision-language models (VLMs) to downstream tasks without weight updates, yielding promising results.
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 21
Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 12
3D-DefectBench: A Controlled Factorial Study of Vision-Language Model Evaluation Pipelines for Fine-Grained 3D Generation Defects
Automated evaluation is essential for scaling generative 3D systems, where exhaustive human review is costly and slow. However, the reliability of an automated judge depends on the entire evaluation pipeline, not only the underlying vision-language model (VLM), but also how assets are rendered, what visual evidence is provided, how the task is specified, and how human reference labels are constructed.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 18
A Cross-Model VLM-Judge Protocol for Single-Image 3D Mesh Quality (and Why Cheap Proxies Fall Short)
arXiv:2606. 18451v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Single-image-to-3D generators are improving quickly, but there is no agreed, human-free way to tell whether one generated mesh is better than another.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.