VISTAQA: Benchmarking Joint Visual Question Answering and Pixel-Level Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20676v1
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 03:44:06 GMT
• Title: VISTAQA: Benchmarking Joint Visual Question Answering and Pixel-Level Evidence
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks assess either textual answer correctness or pixel-level localization in isolation.<n>We introduce VISTAQA, a benchmark for joint evaluation of free-form answer correctness and pixel-level evidence grounding in visual question answering.<n>We introduce GROVE, a metric that enforces joint correctness by combining textual accuracy and grounding quality via a per-sample geometric mean.
• Score: 26.0945130521806
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Establishing a clear link between model predictions and the visual evidence that supports them is critical for transparency and reliability in multimodal reasoning, yet current multimodal large language model (MLLM) evaluations do not explicitly enforce this alignment. Existing benchmarks assess either textual answer correctness or pixel-level localization in isolation, leaving the coupling of reasoning and grounding an open challenge. We introduce VISTAQA, a comprehensive benchmark for joint evaluation of free-form answer correctness and pixel-level evidence grounding in visual question answering. VISTAQA comprises 1,157 expert-curated samples spanning six task types and six visual domains, ranging from direct perception to compositional and relational reasoning. VISTAQA requires models to not only answer correctly, but to also provide precise segmentation masks that support their answers. It also includes hallucination-aware examples where no valid visual evidence exists. To support this enhanced evaluation, we introduce GROVE, a unified evaluation metric that enforces joint correctness by combining textual accuracy and grounding quality via a per-sample geometric mean, ensuring neither dimension can compensate for deficiencies in the other. Comprehensive experiments across grounding-aware models and hybrid pipelines with general-purpose MLLMs reveal that even the strongest systems achieve limited performance under GROVE, highlighting a substantial gap between answer accuracy and visual evidence alignment.

Related papers

• HiEviDR-Bench: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research [52.87128503345243]
  We introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research.<n>HiEviDR-Bench represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation.<n>We develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T23:50:46Z)
• VG-CoT: Towards Trustworthy Visual Reasoning via Grounded Chain-of-Thought [16.361394107862502]
  We propose the Visual Grounding Chain-of-Thought dataset, which explicitly links each reasoning step to real visual evidence within the image.<n>The pipeline generates step-by-step grounded reasoning with GPT-4o and refines the grounding through a rationale-driven open-set detection process.<n> Experiments with representative LVLMs, including LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen2-VL, demonstrate consistent improvements on most evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T08:04:07Z)
• Benchmarking Deflection and Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models [25.176271096443482]
  Existing benchmarks overlook conflicts between visual and textual evidence.<n>We introduce VLM-DeflectionBench, a benchmark of 2,775 samples spanning diverse multimodal retrieval settings.<n>Our results highlight the need to evaluate not only what models know, but how they behave when they do not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T20:22:22Z)
• Can Unified Generation and Understanding Models Maintain Semantic Equivalence Across Different Output Modalities? [61.533560295383786]
  Unified Multimodal Large Language Models (U-MLLMs) integrate understanding and generation within a single architecture.<n>We observe that U-MLLMs fail to maintain semantic equivalence when required to render the same results in the image modality.<n>We introduce VGUBench, a framework to decouple reasoning logic from generation fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T06:23:56Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating Grounded Visual Evidence in Thinking with Images [34.324634481264034]
  We propose ViEBench, a process-verifiable benchmark designed to evaluate faithful visual reasoning.<n>Comprising 200 multi-scenario high-resolution images with expert-annotated visual evidence, ViEBench categorizes tasks by difficulty into perception and reasoning dimensions.<n>Our experiments yield several interesting observations: (1) VLMs can sometimes produce correct final answers despite grounding on irrelevant regions, and (2) they may successfully locate the correct evidence but still fail to utilize it to reach accurate conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T07:25:15Z)
• Look As You Think: Unifying Reasoning and Visual Evidence Attribution for Verifiable Document RAG via Reinforcement Learning [55.232400251303794]
  Look As You Think (LAT) is a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to produce verifiable reasoning paths with consistent attribution.<n>LAT consistently improves the vanilla model in both single- and multi-image settings, yielding average gains of 8.23% in soft exact match (EM) and 47.0% in IoU@0.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:50:23Z)
• Draft and Refine with Visual Experts [18.983324604452118]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) produce ungrounded or hallucinated responses because they rely too heavily on linguistic priors instead of visual evidence.<n>We propose Draft and Refine (DnR), an agent framework driven by a question-conditioned utilization metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T06:50:14Z)
• ProtoVQA: An Adaptable Prototypical Framework for Explainable Fine-Grained Visual Question Answering [30.65960340061612]
  Prototype-based modeling has shown promise for interpretability by grounding predictions in semantically meaningful regions.<n>We present ProtoVQA, a unified framework that learns question-aware prototypes that serve as reasoning anchors.<n>We propose the Visual-Linguistic Alignment Score (VLAS), which measures how well the model's attended regions align with ground-truth evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T13:12:08Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• CoRGI: Verified Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Post-hoc Visual Grounding [1.6257248483123767]
  We present textbfCoRGI(textbfChain textbfof textbfReasoning with textbfGrounded textbfInsights), a framework that enhances reasoning reliability through post-hoc verification of chain-of-thought outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T07:17:12Z)
• Trust but Verify: Programmatic VLM Evaluation in the Wild [62.14071929143684]
  Programmatic VLM Evaluation (PROVE) is a new benchmarking paradigm for evaluating VLM responses to open-ended queries. We benchmark the helpfulness-truthfulness trade-offs of a range ofVLMs on PROVE, finding that very few are in-fact able to achieve a good balance between the two.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T01:19:18Z)
• Detecting Multimodal Situations with Insufficient Context and Abstaining from Baseless Predictions [75.45274978665684]
  Vision-Language Understanding (VLU) benchmarks contain samples where answers rely on assumptions unsupported by the provided context.<n>We collect contextual data for each sample whenever available and train a context selection module to facilitate evidence-based model predictions.<n>We develop a general-purpose Context-AwaRe Abstention detector to identify samples lacking sufficient context and enhance model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T02:21:32Z)

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.