Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Vision Language Models See What You Want but not What You See

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 2410.00324 v6 pith:RH2YDBGQ submitted 2024-10-01 cs.AI

Vision Language Models See What You Want but not What You See

classification cs.AI
keywords othersvlmsabilitiescognitiveintelligenceintentionalitylanguagelevel-2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Knowing others' intentions and taking others' perspectives are two core components of human intelligence that are considered to be instantiations of theory-of-mind. Infiltrating machines with these abilities is an important step towards building human-level artificial intelligence. Here, to investigate intentionality understanding and level-2 perspective-taking in Vision Language Models (VLMs), we constructed the IntentBench and PerspectBench, which together contains over 300 cognitive experiments grounded in real-world scenarios and classic cognitive tasks. We found VLMs achieving high performance on intentionality understanding but low performance on level-2 perspective-taking. This suggests a potential dissociation between simulation-based and theory-based theory-of-mind abilities in VLMs, highlighting the concern that they are not capable of using model-based reasoning to infer others' mental states.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Beyond Localization: A Comprehensive Diagnosis of Perspective-Conditioned Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs from Omnidirectional Images

    cs.CV 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    MLLMs exhibit a large perception-reasoning gap on perspective-conditioned spatial reasoning in omnidirectional images, with accuracy falling from 57% on basic direction tasks to under 1% on compositional reasoning, th...

  2. Beyond Localization: A Comprehensive Diagnosis of Perspective-Conditioned Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs from Omnidirectional Images

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new benchmark reveals MLLMs achieve only 13% or lower accuracy on advanced perspective-conditioned spatial tasks in omnidirectional images, with RL reward shaping raising a 7B model from 31% to 60% in controlled settings.

  3. Beyond Localization: A Comprehensive Diagnosis of Perspective-Conditioned Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs from Omnidirectional Images

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MLLMs display a large perception-reasoning gap on perspective-conditioned spatial reasoning tasks from omnidirectional images, with sharp accuracy drops on advanced tasks like egocentric rotation, though partial gains...

  4. Egocentric Bias in Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Most vision-language models fail Level-2 visual perspective taking: they report the camera's view rather than the 180°-rotated string, even though they often recognize that another agent sees differently.