Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

VGRP-Bench: Visual Grid Reasoning Puzzle Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models

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 2503.23064 v2 pith:EFP2DXNG submitted 2025-03-29 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords reasoninglvlmsvgrp-benchpuzzlesgridmodelsperformancebenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) struggle with puzzles, which require precise perception, rule comprehension, and logical reasoning. Assessing and enhancing their performance in this domain is crucial, as it reflects their ability to engage in structured reasoning - an essential skill for real-world problem-solving. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate pre-trained models without additional training or fine-tuning, often lack a dedicated focus on reasoning, and fail to establish a systematic evaluation framework. To address these limitations, we introduce VGRP-Bench, a Visual Grid Reasoning Puzzle Benchmark featuring 20 diverse puzzles. VGRP-Bench spans multiple difficulty levels, and includes extensive experiments not only on existing chat LVLMs (e.g., GPT-4o), but also on reasoning LVLMs (e.g., Gemini-Thinking). Our results reveal that even the state-of-the-art LVLMs struggle with these puzzles, highlighting fundamental limitations in their puzzle-solving capabilities. Most importantly, through systematic experiments, we identify and analyze key factors influencing LVLMs' puzzle-solving performance, including the number of clues, grid size, and rule complexity. Furthermore, we explore two Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) strategies that can be used in post-training: SFT on solutions (S-SFT) and SFT on synthetic reasoning processes (R-SFT). While both methods significantly improve performance on trained puzzles, they exhibit limited generalization to unseen ones. We will release VGRP-Bench to facilitate further research on LVLMs for complex, real-world problem-solving. Project page: https://yufan-ren.com/subpage/VGRP-Bench/.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. JigShape: Evaluating Visual-Geometric Reasoning in VLMs through Jigsaw Puzzles

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    With interlocking puzzle pieces, vision-language models mostly fail even at 4x4, and fine-tuned models that solve 4x4 fall to near-random by 12x12.

  2. MapTab: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Long-Horizon Multi-Criteria Multimodal Reasoning on Heterogeneous Topological Graphs

    cs.LG 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MapTab is a new multimodal benchmark with 328 images and nearly 200k queries that shows current MLLMs have substantial difficulty with multi-criteria route planning when visual and tabular information must be combined.

  3. VisualSphinx: Large-Scale Synthetic Vision Logic Puzzles for RL

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-derived rules, genetic expansion, and program-drawn images produce 660K visual logic puzzles; GRPO training on them lifts a VLM's accuracy on those puzzles and modestly on MathVista.

  4. Jigsaw-Puzzles: From Seeing to Understanding to Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current vision-language models fall far short of humans on spatial reasoning, especially when they must generate answers directly instead of choosing from options.

  5. TextAtari: 100K Frames Game Playing with Language Agents

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TextAtari is a text-based Atari benchmark for language agents; 7-8B LLMs stay below 10% of human scores in over 90% of tested conditions, and knowledge injection helps more than chain-of-thought.

  6. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.

Pith tools