Skip to content
Preprint

Groundbench: Multi-Resolution Polygon Grounding Exposes the Geometry Gap in Vision-Language Models

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 43 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

An operational output-geometry gap spanning localisation, boundary construction, serialisation, and topology, rather than latent boundary perception alone is Measures an operational output-geometry gap spanning localisation, boundary construction, serialisation, and topology rather than latent boundary perception alone.

Abstract

Bounding-box scores on RefCOCO-family grounding leave little room to distinguish frontier vision-language systems, yet boxes discard object shape. We introduce GroundingBench, a matched benchmark that re-targets the same 1,500 image-expression-referent triples to exact-N polygons at five vertex budgets. A fixed-denominator harness separately audits filled-region intersection over union (IoU) and legal-polygon completion. The strongest tested configuration reaches 88.2 box IoU and 97.1 accuracy at IoU>= .5 (Acc@.5), versus 57.7 and 69.2 for direct polygons; because these headline scores use different references, we also compare direct polygons with predicted boxes rasterised against the same contour target, obtaining 57.7 versus 57.3 when pooled. Performance is non-monotone in N and collapses at the densest budget, where legality failures compound residual geometric error. Qwen's thinking-setting contrast is the largest tested input-preserving configuration difference; under frozen templates, false spatial cues are more damaging than false colour cues, and target preference can remain high while contour tracing is poor. Alternate masks and a continuous-area scorer preserve the principal ordering. GroundingBench therefore measures an operational output-geometry gap spanning localisation, boundary construction, serialisation, and topology, rather than latent boundary perception alone.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

SceneBench: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Vision-Language Understanding of 3D Scenes

SceneBench is introduced, a benchmark of 966 photorealistic 3D scenes reconstructed with Gaussian Splatting and densely annotated with hierarchical semantics spanning scenes, rooms, functional areas, object groups, and individual objects that provides a realistic testbed for developing and evaluating models capable of...

Anubhav Khanal, Prabigya Acharya, Roshni Poudel et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

GUI-Primitives: Diagnosing Spatial Reasoning Failures in Vision-Language GUI Grounding

Computer-use agents ground natural-language instructions in screenshots to locate interface elements, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether models bind relational language to the correct element. We introduce GUI-Primitives, a 994-item benchmark of contrastive instruction pairs over seven spatial relations in...

Md Abrar Jahin, Md. Rizwan Parvez · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

RefineAny3D: Depth Refinement as Semantic Alignment for Monocular 3D Detection

This work presents RefineAny3D, a vision-language model that corrects depth without ever predicting a numerical value, and delivers consistent gains across closed-set detectors, open-vocabulary detectors, and 3D auto-labeling tools, and generalizes to novel categories, scenes, and cameras without retraining.

Zhihao Zhang, Geng-Wei Zhang, Tianlong Chen et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Spatially Constrained 3D Scene Graphs for Scene-Grounded Subtask Generation

A feed-forward, spatially constrained framework that grounds task-relevant objects and generates position-aware subtasks without an iterative task–scene refinement loop is proposed and confidence-guided verification improves the unweighted scene-average Relaxed Accuracy F1.

Junsang Ryu, Si-Woo Lee, Inseon Choi et al. · 0 citations
#small language model Preprint Sep 2026

Seeing Is Not Measuring: Tool-Augmented Metric Spatial Reasoning for Vision-Language Models

A modular, predictor agnostic, tool-augmented framework that equips a small VLM with geometric tools: 3D object detection, metric depth estimation, and deterministic solvers for distance, size and bearing, matching a scripted pipeline on three of four tasks.

Kai Glantz, Clemens Grange · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.