arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
​通知:联邦节假日调休:哥伦布日 / 原住民日(Columbus Day / Indigenous Peoples' Day),今日(13日)无更新。
arXiv 2509.24640cs.CVcs.AI

你能把它 SPLICE 起来吗?一个用于探究 VLM 视觉推理的人工策划基准

Can you SPLICE it together? A Human Curated Benchmark for Probing Visual Reasoning in VLMs

Institute of Cognitive Science, Osnabrück University(认知科学研究所,奥斯纳布吕克大学)

Mohamad Ballout, Okajevo Wilfred, Seyedalireza Yaghoubi, Nohayr Muhammad Abdelmoneim, Julius Mayer, Elia Bruni

AI总结:

该研究提出源自 COIN 的人工策划基准 SPLICE,通过事件片段重排任务评估 VLM 的多维视觉推理,发现其显著落后于人类且更依赖语言先验。

摘要:

在本工作中,我们提出 SPLICE,这是一个源自 COIN 教学视频数据集的人工策划基准,旨在从时间、因果、空间、情境和常识等多个维度探究基于事件的推理。SPLICE 包含 3,381 个经人工筛选的视频,涵盖 12 个类别和 180 个子类别,例如运动、工程和家务。这些视频被切分为总计 11,423 个事件片段。我们在将这些片段重新排列成连贯事件序列的任务上,对人类参与者和最先进的视觉语言模型(VLM)进行评估,以衡量视觉推理能力。结果揭示了显著差距:VLM 难以达到人类表现。虽然人工标注的文本描述提高了模型准确率,但它们并不影响人类表现,这表明模型更多依赖语言先验而非视觉理解。即使有标注,VLM 仍达不到人类水平的推理,凸显了视觉推理中持续存在的挑战。跨子类别的更深入分析表明,与情境和空间推理占主导的视频相比,VLM 在时间和因果推理占主导的视频上表现相对更好;它们在日常任务上的表现也优于专业任务。

英文摘要:

In this work, we introduce SPLICE, a human-curated benchmark derived from the COIN instructional video dataset, designed to probe event-based reasoning across multiple dimensions: temporal, causal, spatial, contextual, and general knowledge. SPLICE includes 3,381 human-filtered videos spanning 12 categories and 180 sub-categories, such as sports, engineering, and housework. These videos are segmented into a total of 11,423 event clips. We evaluate both human participants and state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) on the task of rearranging these clips into coherent event sequences to assess visual reasoning capabilities. Results reveal a significant gap: VLMs struggle to match human performance. While human-annotated textual descriptions improve model accuracy, they do not affect human performance, suggesting that models rely more on language priors than on visual understanding. Even with annotations, VLMs fall short of human-level reasoning, underscoring persistent challenges in visual reasoning. A deeper analysis across sub-categories shows that VLMs perform relatively better on videos where temporal and causal reasoning are dominant, compared to those where contextual and spatial reasoning are dominant. They also perform better on everyday tasks than on specialized ones.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑