Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19546v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:19:26 GMT
• Title: Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?
• Authors: Antonia Wüst, Tim Tobiasch, Lukas Helff, Devendra S. Dhami, Constantin A. Rothkopf, Kristian Kersting,
• Abstract summary: Recently developed Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged, seemingly demonstrating advanced reasoning capabilities across text and image modalities. To assess the progress and identify shortcomings, we enter the wonderland of Bongard problems, a set of classical visual reasoning puzzles. Surprisingly, even elementary concepts that may seem trivial to humans, such as simple spirals, pose significant challenges.
• Score: 20.345280863013983
• License:
• Abstract: Recently, newly developed Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as OpenAI's GPT-4o, have emerged, seemingly demonstrating advanced reasoning capabilities across text and image modalities. Yet, the depth of these advances in language-guided perception and abstract reasoning remains underexplored, and it is unclear whether these models can truly live up to their ambitious promises. To assess the progress and identify shortcomings, we enter the wonderland of Bongard problems, a set of classical visual reasoning puzzles that require human-like abilities of pattern recognition and abstract reasoning. While VLMs occasionally succeed in identifying discriminative concepts and solving some of the problems, they frequently falter, failing to understand and reason about visual concepts. Surprisingly, even elementary concepts that may seem trivial to humans, such as simple spirals, pose significant challenges. Moreover, even when asked to explicitly focus on and analyze these concepts, they continue to falter, suggesting not only a lack of understanding of these elementary visual concepts but also an inability to generalize to unseen concepts. These observations underscore the current limitations of VLMs, emphasize that a significant gap remains between human-like visual reasoning and machine cognition, and highlight the ongoing need for innovation in this area.

Related papers

• Help Me Identify: Is an LLM+VQA System All We Need to Identify Visual Concepts? [62.984473889987605]
  We present a zero-shot framework for fine-grained visual concept learning by leveraging large language model and Visual Question Answering (VQA) system. We pose these questions along with the query image to a VQA system and aggregate the answers to determine the presence or absence of an object in the test images. Our experiments demonstrate comparable performance with existing zero-shot visual classification methods and few-shot concept learning approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:16:10Z)
• Do Vision-Language Models Really Understand Visual Language? [43.893398898373995]
  Diagrams are a typical example of a visual language depicting complex concepts and their relationships in the form of an image. Recent studies suggest that Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) can even tackle complex reasoning tasks involving diagrams. This paper develops a comprehensive test suite to evaluate the diagram comprehension capability of LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T19:45:11Z)
• What Makes a Maze Look Like a Maze? [92.80800000328277]
  We introduce Deep Grounding (DSG), a framework that leverages explicit structured representations of visual abstractions for grounding and reasoning. At the core of DSG are schemas--dependency graph descriptions of abstract concepts that decompose them into more primitive-level symbols. We show that DSG significantly improves the abstract visual reasoning performance of vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T16:41:47Z)
• Bongard-OpenWorld: Few-Shot Reasoning for Free-form Visual Concepts in the Real World [57.832261258993526]
  Bongard-OpenWorld is a new benchmark for evaluating real-world few-shot reasoning for machine vision. It already imposes a significant challenge to current few-shot reasoning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T09:19:18Z)
• Bongard-LOGO: A New Benchmark for Human-Level Concept Learning and Reasoning [78.13740873213223]
  Bongard problems (BPs) were introduced as an inspirational challenge for visual cognition in intelligent systems. We propose a new benchmark Bongard-LOGO for human-level concept learning and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-02T03:19:46Z)
• Multi-Granularity Modularized Network for Abstract Visual Reasoning [15.956555435408557]
  We focus on the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, designed to measure cognitive reasoning. Inspired by cognitive studies, we propose a Multi-Granularity Modularized Network (MMoN) to bridge the gap between the processing of raw sensory information and symbolic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-09T09:54:05Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Visual Reasoning: Disentangling "Visual" from "Reasoning" [49.76230210108583]
  We propose a framework to isolate and evaluate the reasoning aspect of visual question answering (VQA) separately from its perception. We also propose a novel top-down calibration technique that allows the model to answer reasoning questions even with imperfect perception. On the challenging GQA dataset, this framework is used to perform in-depth, disentangled comparisons between well-known VQA models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-20T08:48:29Z)
• Dark, Beyond Deep: A Paradigm Shift to Cognitive AI with Humanlike Common Sense [142.53911271465344]
  We argue that the next generation of AI must embrace "dark" humanlike common sense for solving novel tasks. We identify functionality, physics, intent, causality, and utility (FPICU) as the five core domains of cognitive AI with humanlike common sense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T04:07:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.