The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
arXiv:2604. 27720v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to medical visual question answering (Med-VQA), yet whether they can \emph{localize} the evidence behind their answers---a prerequisite for clinical auditability---is poorly characterized.
arXiv:2609. 11916v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Camera traps often run in the field on edge hardware with limited or no connectivity, making small, locally-deployable vision-language models (VLMs) -- not frontier-scale ones -- the practically relevant class to evaluate for species identification.
AgroGround is a large‑scale dataset that links plant disease and agricultural target labels to image regions, enabling models to both recognize and localize these targets. It was created by automatically converting eight agricultural VQA datasets into 794,850 grounded instruction examples, including healthy images for negative supervision. Fine‑tuning a shared vision‑language model on these instructions improves recognition, joint accuracy, and healthy‑image abstention, outperforming its annotation teacher on both the AgroGround benchmark and the external PlantSeg test set.
MYOPIA is a benchmark that evaluates tree-based reasoning in vision‑language models (VLMs) using four human‑refined decision trees for GTSRB, MNIST, CIFAR‑10, and MSCOCO. The study shows that tree traversal consistently underperforms zero‑shot prompting across GPT‑4o, Qwen‑VL Max, and LLaMA‑3.2 11B Vision, with significant gaps between class‑attribute recall and image grounding. Diagnostics reveal that early incorrect decisions and answer extraction losses drive this performance drop, and node‑level analysis links split entropy to lower accuracy.
arXiv:2609.25040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Banana crop diseases threaten food security across the world, yet field diagnosis remains difficult because of limited expert access and visual simil...
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.