Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.19546 v4 pith:WV4UAY2O submitted 2024-10-25 cs.AI cs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords conceptsreasoningvisualvlmsabstractbongardcapabilitieselementary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently, newly developed Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as OpenAI's o1, have emerged, seemingly demonstrating advanced reasoning capabilities across text and image modalities. However, the depth of these advances in language-guided perception and abstract reasoning remains underexplored, and it is unclear whether these models can truly live up to their ambitious promises. To assess the progress and identify shortcomings, we enter the wonderland of Bongard problems, a set of classic visual reasoning puzzles that require human-like abilities of pattern recognition and abstract reasoning. With our extensive evaluation setup, we show that while VLMs occasionally succeed in identifying discriminative concepts and solving some of the problems, they frequently falter. Surprisingly, even elementary concepts that may seem trivial to humans, such as simple spirals, pose significant challenges. Moreover, when explicitly asked to recognize ground truth concepts, they continue to falter, suggesting not only a lack of understanding of these elementary visual concepts but also an inability to generalize to unseen concepts. We compare the results of VLMs to human performance and observe that a significant gap remains between human visual reasoning capabilities and machine cognition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Jumping Reasoning Curve? Tracking the Evolution of Reasoning Performance in GPT-[n] and o-[n] Models on Multimodal Puzzles

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Later OpenAI o-series models substantially outperform GPT-series models on multimodal puzzles, but fine-grained visual perception and algorithmic puzzles remain hard.

Pith tools