A benchmark that connects complete-question evaluation with explicit evidence for its labels across PlotQA charts, CLEVR rendered scenes, and GQA photographs is introduced, exposing failures that answerability decisions alone conceal.
Abstract
Reliable visual question answering requires correct answers when evidence is sufficient and abstention when it is not. We introduce a benchmark that connects complete-question evaluation with explicit evidence for its labels across PlotQA charts, CLEVR rendered scenes, and GQA photographs. Each question groups original and edited images, presented independently; success requires every supported answer and every required abstention to be correct. For chart missing-information labels, executable witnesses establish that admissible complete charts give different answers but identical pixels after masking. Scene labels follow source programs and edits, with a residual-cue analysis for photographs. Across 72,000 responses from six model configurations, the highest observed complete task success rates are 57.0%, 43.5%, and 33.7%, respectively. On charts, the strongest configuration achieves 96.2% per-view decision accuracy, yet 265 of its 835 groups with every decision correct still contain incorrect answers. Evaluating supported answers and necessary abstentions together exposes failures that answerability decisions alone conceal.
Visual question answering requires models to assign attributes and relations to the correct objects, a problem known as visual binding. Structured prompts make these assignments explicit through labeled fields. Yet an improvement from the full prompt does not reveal which labels help or how they interact. First, we iso...
Xiao-Yu Ma, Zhe-Yuan Zhang, Kai-Wen Shi et al.· 0 citations
A spatial answer depends on the reference frame specified in language and its supporting visual evidence. Item accuracy alone obscures whether correctness persists when either changes. We introduce Frame Evidence, a benchmark of 320 matched triplets and 960 Chinese multiple-choice questions from captured and rendered s...
Chun-Xi Luo, Qi-Shuai Ding, Xing-Chen Peng et al.· 0 citations
Visual question answering models often produce plausible responses even when the available visual evidence is insufficient to support a valid answer. Although prior work has introduced benchmarks and abstention mechanisms for unanswerable visual questions, it remains unclear which signals derived from a frozen vision-l...
Minjun Kim, Hyunmin Song, Changwon Lim· 0 citations
Multimodal reasoning requires models to combine multiple pieces of evidence into decisions that satisfy all relevant constraints. Evaluations centered on final-answer accuracy leave unclear whether failures arise from reading individual facts or using them together. We study this question through the multi-evidence int...
Can structured text replace vision for diagram reasoning? A wrong answer after textualization can arise because the representation omits information the question needs, or because the solver fails to use information that is present. We introduce a diagnostic protocol to distinguish these explanations. Using the same so...
Yun-Bei Zhang, Janet Wang, J. Hamm et al.· 0 citations
Final-answer accuracy reports whether a vision-language model was right, but not whether its answer was grounded in the image, whether its stated reasoning reflects that evidence, or what the answer cost to produce. Those are the properties that decide whether a system can be deployed. We present PRISM-BENCH, a benchma...
Vansh Bhatia, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, Parsa Ashrafi Fashi et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.