IQBench: How "Smart'' Are Vision-Language Models? A Study with Human IQ Tests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12000v1
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 13:24:08 GMT
• Title: IQBench: How "Smart'' Are Vision-Language Models? A Study with Human IQ Tests
• Authors: Tan-Hanh Pham, Phu-Vinh Nguyen, Dang The Hung, Bui Trong Duong, Vu Nguyen Thanh, Chris Ngo, Tri Quang Truong, Truong-Son Hy,
• Abstract summary: We introduce **IQBench**, a new benchmark designed to evaluate Vision-Language Models on standardized visual IQ tests.<n>We focus on evaluating the reasoning capabilities of VLMs, which we argue are more important than the accuracy of the final prediction.
• Score: 1.1142124321313052
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Although large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in a wide range of multimodal tasks, their true reasoning capabilities on human IQ tests remain underexplored. To advance research on the fluid intelligence of VLMs, we introduce **IQBench**, a new benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs on standardized visual IQ tests. We focus on evaluating the reasoning capabilities of VLMs, which we argue are more important than the accuracy of the final prediction. **Our benchmark is visually centric, minimizing the dependence on unnecessary textual content**, thus encouraging models to derive answers primarily from image-based information rather than learned textual knowledge. To this end, we manually collected and annotated 500 visual IQ questions to **prevent unintentional data leakage during training**. Unlike prior work that focuses primarily on the accuracy of the final answer, we evaluate the reasoning ability of the models by assessing their explanations and the patterns used to solve each problem, along with the accuracy of the final prediction and human evaluation. Our experiments show that there are substantial performance disparities between tasks, with models such as `o4-mini`, `gemini-2.5-flash`, and `claude-3.7-sonnet` achieving the highest average accuracies of 0.615, 0.578, and 0.548, respectively. However, all models struggle with 3D spatial and anagram reasoning tasks, highlighting significant limitations in current VLMs' general reasoning abilities. In terms of reasoning scores, `o4-mini`, `gemini-2.5-flash`, and `claude-3.7-sonnet` achieved top averages of 0.696, 0.586, and 0.516, respectively. These results highlight inconsistencies between the reasoning processes of the models and their final answers, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the accuracy of the reasoning in addition to the final predictions.

Related papers

• MagiC: Evaluating Multimodal Cognition Toward Grounded Visual Reasoning [15.17428354380373]
  We introduce MagiC, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate grounded multimodal cognition.<n>We evaluate 15 vision-language models ranging from 7B to 70B parameters across four dimensions: final answer correctness, reasoning validity, grounding fidelity, and self-correction ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T21:44:12Z)
• HV-MMBench: Benchmarking MLLMs for Human-Centric Video Understanding [79.06209664703258]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant advances in visual understanding tasks involving both images and videos.<n>Existing human-centric benchmarks predominantly emphasize video generation quality and action recognition, while overlooking essential perceptual and cognitive abilities required in human-centered scenarios.<n>We propose a rigorously curated benchmark designed to provide a more holistic evaluation of MLLMs in human-centric video understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T11:52:24Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• LENS: Multi-level Evaluation of Multimodal Reasoning with Large Language Models [59.0256377330646]
  Lens is a benchmark with 3.4K contemporary images and 60K+ human-authored questions covering eight tasks and 12 daily scenarios.<n>This dataset intrinsically supports to evaluate MLLMs to handle image-invariable prompts, from basic perception to compositional reasoning.<n>We evaluate 15+ frontier MLLMs such as Qwen2.5-VL-72B, InternVL3-78B, GPT-4o and two reasoning models QVQ-72B-preview and Kimi-VL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T15:06:59Z)
• ChartMuseum: Testing Visual Reasoning Capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models [37.54872845368151]
  We conduct a case study using a synthetic dataset solvable only through visual reasoning.<n>We then introduce ChartMuseum, a new Chart Question Answering (QA) benchmark containing 1,162 expert-annotated questions.<n>Although humans achieve 93% accuracy, the best-performing model Gemini-2.5-Pro attains only 63.0%, and the leading open-source LVLM Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct achieves only 38.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T17:59:27Z)
• 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.<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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• Black Swan: Abductive and Defeasible Video Reasoning in Unpredictable Events [33.51522765443546]
  BlackSwanSuite is a benchmark for evaluating vision-language models' ability to reason about unexpected events.<n>We curate a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising over 3,800 MCQ, 4,900 generative and 6,700 yes/no questions, spanning 1,655 videos.<n>We find significant performance gaps of up to 32% from humans on these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T19:19:03Z)
• DynaMath: A Dynamic Visual Benchmark for Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Robustness of Vision Language Models [19.787224412654872]
  We introduce DynaMath, a dynamic visual math benchmark designed for in-depth assessment of Vision-Language Models (VLMs)<n> DynaMath includes 501 high-quality, multi-topic seed questions, each represented as a Python program.<n>Our results show that the worst-case model accuracy, defined as the percentage of correctly answered seed questions in all 10 variants, is significantly lower than the average-case accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T17:29:19Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• Perception Test: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Multimodal Video Models [78.64546291816117]
  We propose a novel multimodal video benchmark to evaluate the perception and reasoning skills of pre-trained multimodal models. The Perception Test focuses on skills (Memory, Abstraction, Physics, Semantics) and types of reasoning (descriptive, explanatory, predictive, counterfactual) across video, audio, and text modalities. The benchmark probes pre-trained models for their transfer capabilities, in a zero-shot / few-shot or limited finetuning regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T07:54:37Z)
• VisFIS: Visual Feature Importance Supervision with Right-for-the-Right-Reason Objectives [84.48039784446166]
  We show that model FI supervision can meaningfully improve VQA model accuracy as well as performance on several Right-for-the-Right-Reason metrics. Our best performing method, Visual Feature Importance Supervision (VisFIS), outperforms strong baselines on benchmark VQA datasets. Predictions are more accurate when explanations are plausible and faithful, and not when they are plausible but not faithful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T17:02:01Z)

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.