VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15279v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:59:53 GMT
• Title: VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models
• Authors: Weiye Xu, Jiahao Wang, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Wengang Zhou, Aijun Yang, Lewei Lu, Houqiang Li, Xiaohua Wang, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Jifeng Dai, Jinguo Zhu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories.<n>These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives.<n>Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
• Score: 121.03333569013148
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Visual reasoning is a core component of human intelligence and a critical capability for advanced multimodal models. Yet current reasoning evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often rely on text descriptions and allow language-based reasoning shortcuts, failing to measure genuine vision-centric reasoning. To address this, we introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories (e.g., quantitative shifts, spatial relations, attribute comparisons). These various types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives. We evaluate leading MLLMs on this benchmark and analyze their results to identify common failure modes. Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans-revealing significant gaps in visual reasoning. Furthermore, we provide a supplementary training dataset and a reinforcement-learning baseline to support further progress.

Related papers

• VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity [34.29409506366145]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T16:26:11Z)
• 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)<n>VisFactor digitalizes vision-related FRCT subtests to systematically evaluate MLLMs across essential visual cognitive tasks.<n>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)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Polymath: A Challenging Multi-modal Mathematical Reasoning Benchmark [53.61633384281524]
  PolyMATH is a benchmark aimed at evaluating the general cognitive reasoning abilities of MLLMs. The best scores achieved on PolyMATH are 41%, 36%, and 27%, obtained by Claude-3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o and Gemini-1.5 Pro respectively. A further fine-grained error analysis reveals that these models struggle to understand spatial relations and perform drawn-out, high-level reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T20:35:41Z)
• A Survey on Benchmarks of Multimodal Large Language Models [65.87641718350639]
  This paper presents a comprehensive review of 200 benchmarks and evaluations for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) We focus on (1)perception and understanding, (2)cognition and reasoning, (3)specific domains, (4)key capabilities, and (5)other modalities. Our key argument is that evaluation should be regarded as a crucial discipline to support the development of MLLMs better.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T09:52:02Z)
• Multi-LogiEval: Towards Evaluating Multi-Step Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [46.26140720993383]
  Multi-LogiEval is a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. We conduct evaluations on a range of Large Language Models including GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Yi, Orca, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T23:02:56Z)
• 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)
• Are Machines Better at Complex Reasoning? Unveiling Human-Machine Inference Gaps in Entailment Verification [41.330719056639616]
  We study the entailment verification problem of multi-sentence premises. Modern NLP problems, such as detecting inconsistent model-generated rationales, require complex multi-hop reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T04:14:09Z)

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.