Benchmarks for Vision-Language Models in Urban Perception Should Be Reliability-Aware and Negotiated

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00871v1
• Date: Sat, 30 May 2026 19:56:17 GMT
• Title: Benchmarks for Vision-Language Models in Urban Perception Should Be Reliability-Aware and Negotiated
• Abstract summary: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to generate structured descriptions of street-level imagery.<n>This paper argues that benchmarking VLMs for urban perception should treat disagreement and abstention as measurement outcomes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to generate structured descriptions of street-level imagery for tasks such as streetscape auditing, mapping, and public consultation. These uses combine observable attributes with appraisal categories, and the human targets are often distributions of judgments with disagreement and explicit non-response. This paper argues that benchmarking VLMs for urban perception should treat disagreement and abstention as measurement outcomes, report inter-annotator reliability alongside model alignment, and treat the label space and scoring policy as negotiable artifacts when outputs are intended to inform urban governance. We ground the argument in a benchmark of 100 Montreal street scenes annotated along 30 dimensions by 12 participants from seven community organizations, and in a deterministic zero-shot evaluation of seven VLMs. Across dimensions, model agreement with human consensus co-varies with dimension-level human reliability, and for the appraisal dimension Overall Impression models and annotators exhibit distributional mismatch including different rates of Not applicable. We close with actions for benchmark creators, model developers, and institutions to make uncertainty and benchmark assumptions visible in evaluation reports.

Related papers

• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• Pressure Reveals Character: Behavioural Alignment Evaluation at Depth [3.634215320925722]
  We introduce an alignment benchmark spanning 904 scenarios across six categories -- Honesty, Safety, Non-Manipulation, Robustness, Corrigibility, and Scheming.<n>Our scenarios place models under conflicting instructions, simulated tool access, and multi-turn escalation to reveal behavioural tendencies that single-turn evaluations miss.<n>We find that even top-performing models exhibit gaps in specific categories, while the majority of models show consistent weaknesses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T11:52:17Z)
• Revisiting Reliability in the Reasoning-based Pose Estimation Benchmark [27.134554623769898]
  The reasoning-based pose estimation (RPE) benchmark has emerged as a widely adopted evaluation standard for pose-aware large language models (MLLMs)<n>We identified critical and benchmark-quality issues that hinder fair and consistent quantitative evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T17:33:11Z)
• Interpretable Multimodal Framework for Human-Centered Street Assessment: Integrating Visual-Language Models for Perceptual Urban Diagnostics [0.0]
  This study introduces a novel Multimodal Street Evaluation Framework (MSEF)<n>We fine-tune the framework using LoRA and P-Tuning v2 for parameter-efficient adaptation.<n>The model achieves an F1 score of 0.84 on objective features and 89.3 percent agreement with aggregated resident perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T14:34:04Z)
• Does Context Matter? ContextualJudgeBench for Evaluating LLM-based Judges in Contextual Settings [36.449658676568234]
  Large language model (LLM)-as-judge paradigm has been used to meet the demand for a cheap, reliable, and fast evaluation of model outputs.<n>We propose ContextualJudgeBench, a judge benchmark with 2,000 challenging response pairs across eight splits inspired by real-world contextual evaluation scenarios.<n>Our comprehensive study reveals that the contextual information and its assessment criteria present a significant challenge to even state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T18:09:19Z)
• Negotiative Alignment: Embracing Disagreement to Achieve Fairer Outcomes -- Insights from Urban Studies [1.3787753513429983]
  Disagreement patterns were systematic in our sample.<n>Group discussion reduced information gaps but not value conflicts.<n>Treating disagreement as signal and reporting worst-group outcomes alongside totals may help planners and AI practitioners surface trade-offs and preserve minority priorities while maintaining efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-16T18:55:54Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 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)
• Open-ended VQA benchmarking of Vision-Language models by exploiting Classification datasets and their semantic hierarchy [27.454549324141087]
  We propose a novel VQA benchmark based on well-known visual classification datasets. We also suggest using the semantic hierarchy of the label space to ask automatically generated follow-up questions about the ground-truth category. Our contributions aim to lay the foundation for more precise and meaningful assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T18:26:18Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)

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.