VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11557v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:26:11 GMT
• Title: VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity
• Authors: Jing Bi, Junjia Guo, Susan Liang, Guangyu Sun, Luchuan Song, Yunlong Tang, Jinxi He, Jiarui Wu, Ali Vosoughi, Chen Chen, Chenliang Xu,
• Abstract summary: VERIFY is a benchmark designed to isolate and rigorously evaluate the visual reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs.<n>Each problem is accompanied by a human-annotated reasoning path, making it the first to provide in-depth evaluation of model decision-making processes.<n>We propose novel metrics that assess visual reasoning fidelity beyond mere accuracy, highlighting critical imbalances in current model reasoning patterns.
• Score: 34.29409506366145
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Visual reasoning is central to human cognition, enabling individuals to interpret and abstractly understand their environment. Although recent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across language and vision-language tasks, existing benchmarks primarily measure recognition-based skills and inadequately assess true visual reasoning capabilities. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce VERIFY, a benchmark explicitly designed to isolate and rigorously evaluate the visual reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs. VERIFY compels models to reason primarily from visual information, providing minimal textual context to reduce reliance on domain-specific knowledge and linguistic biases. Each problem is accompanied by a human-annotated reasoning path, making it the first to provide in-depth evaluation of model decision-making processes. Additionally, we propose novel metrics that assess visual reasoning fidelity beyond mere accuracy, highlighting critical imbalances in current model reasoning patterns. Our comprehensive benchmarking of leading MLLMs uncovers significant limitations, underscoring the need for a balanced and holistic approach to both perception and reasoning. For more teaser and testing, visit our project page (https://verify-eqh.pages.dev/).

Related papers

• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories. These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives. Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• V-MAGE: A Game Evaluation Framework for Assessing Visual-Centric Capabilities in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.27290155010533]
  V-MAGE is a game-based evaluation framework designed to assess visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. We use V-MAGE to evaluate leading MLLMs, revealing significant challenges in their visual perception and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T15:43:01Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• VisFactor: Benchmarking Fundamental Visual Cognition in Multimodal Large Language Models [62.667142971664575]
  We introduce VisFactor, a novel benchmark derived from the Factor-Referenced Cognitive Test (FRCT) VisFactor digitalizes vision-related FRCT subtests to systematically evaluate MLLMs across essential visual cognitive tasks. We present a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs, such as GPT-4o, Gemini-Pro, and Qwen-VL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• Cognitive Paradigms for Evaluating VLMs on Visual Reasoning Task [3.2228025627337864]
  Advancing machine visual reasoning requires a deeper understanding of how Vision-Language Models (VLMs) process and interpret complex visual patterns.<n>This work introduces a novel, cognitively-inspired evaluation framework to systematically analyze VLM reasoning on natural image-based Bongard Problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T12:42:42Z)
• DRIVINGVQA: Analyzing Visual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning of Vision Language Models in Real-World Scenarios with Driving Theory Tests [69.00444996464662]
  We present DrivingVQA, a new benchmark derived from driving theory tests to evaluate visual chain-of-thought reasoning in complex real-world scenarios.<n>Our experiments reveal that open-source and proprietary LVLMs struggle with visual chain-of-thought reasoning under zero-shot settings.<n>We investigate training strategies that leverage relevant entities to improve visual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T18:31:16Z)
• ProReason: Multi-Modal Proactive Reasoning with Decoupled Eyesight and Wisdom [42.03770972100087]
  We introduce a novel visual reasoning framework named ProReason. ProReason features multi-run proactive perception and decoupled vision-reasoning capabilities. Our experiments demonstrate that ProReason outperforms both existing multi-step reasoning frameworks and passive peer methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T03:22:06Z)
• Multimodal Causal Reasoning Benchmark: Challenging Vision Large Language Models to Infer Causal Links Between Siamese Images [19.923665989164387]
  We propose a novel Multimodal Causal Reasoning benchmark, namely MuCR, to challenge Large Language Models. Specifically, we introduce a prompt-driven image synthesis approach to create siamese images with embedded semantic causality and visual cues. Our extensive experiments reveal that the current state-of-the-art VLLMs are not as skilled at multimodal causal reasoning as we might have hoped.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T12:04:32Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• NPHardEval4V: A Dynamic Reasoning Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models [34.91372939329467]
  We introduce a benchmark, NPHardEval4V, to evaluate the pure reasoning abilities of MLLMs. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies in reasoning abilities across different models. We also investigate the impact of different prompting styles, including visual, text, and combined visual and text prompts, on the reasoning abilities of MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:10:31Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

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.