REVIEW 4 cited by
What is the Visual Cognition Gap between Humans and Multimodal LLMs?
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
read the original abstract
Recently, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have shown great promise in language-guided perceptual tasks such as recognition, segmentation, and object detection. However, their effectiveness in addressing visual cognition problems that require high-level multi-image reasoning and visual working memory is not well-established. One such challenge is matrix reasoning - the cognitive ability to discern relationships among patterns in a set of images and extrapolate to predict subsequent patterns. This skill is crucial during the early neurodevelopmental stages of children. Inspired by the matrix reasoning tasks in Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), we propose a new dataset MaRs-VQA to evaluate the visual cognition capability of MLLMs and compare their performance with existing human visual cognition studies. Based on the training data of MaRs-VQA, we also finetune a baseline model Qwen2-VCog with multi-stage cognition reasoning annotations. Our comparative experiments with different baselines reveal a gap between MLLMs and human intelligence, highlighting the visual cognitive limitations of current MLLMs. We believe that the public release of MaRs-VQA and the Qwen2-VCog baseline model will drive progress toward the next generation of MLLMs with human-like visual cognition abilities. MaRs-VQA is available at huggingface.co/datasets/IrohXu/VCog-Bench. The training code of Qwen2-VCog is available at github.com/IrohXu/Cognition-MLLM.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Synthetic Heuristic Evaluation: A Comparison between AI- and Human-Powered Usability Evaluation
An LLM prompted to conduct heuristic evaluation reported more usability issues on two apps than five human experts, but the ground truth included the LLM's own findings.
-
Beyond Perception: Evaluating Abstract Visual Reasoning through Multi-Stage Task
MultiStAR decomposes RAVEN abstract reasoning into five staged sub-tasks and MSEval scores partial progress, showing MLLMs handle basic perception but fail at rule deduction.
-
Beyond Task-Specific Reasoning: A Unified Conditional Generative Framework for Abstract Visual Reasoning
A single conditional generative model, trained only on RPM-style puzzles, can be repurposed via probability scoring to solve odd-one-out, analogy, and categorization tasks, with modest zero-shot transfer.
-
Detecting Hope, Hate, and Emotion in Arabic Textual Speech and Multi-modal Memes Using Large Language Models
The submission cannot be reviewed as a coherent paper: its abstract and full text are two different papers, so the abstract's claims have no supporting body.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.