Pith. sign in

REVIEW

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 2502.08503 v3 pith:DAQE7THI submitted 2025-02-12 cs.AI

Revisiting 3D LLM Benchmarks: Are We Really Testing 3D Capabilities?

classification cs.AI
keywords benchmarkscapabilitiesevaluationllmsabilitiesacrossadvocateaspects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we identify the "2D-Cheating" problem in 3D LLM evaluation, where these tasks might be easily solved by VLMs with rendered images of point clouds, exposing ineffective evaluation of 3D LLMs' unique 3D capabilities. We test VLM performance across multiple 3D LLM benchmarks and, using this as a reference, propose principles for better assessing genuine 3D understanding. We also advocate explicitly separating 3D abilities from 1D or 2D aspects when evaluating 3D LLMs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/LLM-class-group/Revisiting-3D-LLM-Benchmarks

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.