VB: Visibility Benchmark for Visibility and Perspective Reasoning in Images
On the map: LLM reasoning → Multimodal reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
We present VB, a benchmark that tests whether vision-language models can determine what is and is not visible in a photograph, and abstain when a human viewer cannot reliably answer. Each item pairs a single photo with a short yes/no visibility claim; the model must output VISIBLY_TRUE, VISIBLY_FALSE, or ABSTAIN, together with a confidence score. Items are organized into 100 families using a 2x2 design that crosses a minimal image edit with a minimal text edit, yielding 300 headline evaluation cells. Unlike prior unanswerable-VQA benchmarks, VB tests not only whether a question is unanswerable but why (via reason codes tied to specific visibility factors), and uses controlled minimal edits to verify that model judgments change when and only when the underlying evidence changes. We score models on confidence-aware accuracy with abstention (CAA), minimal-edit flip rate (MEFR), confidence-ranked selective prediction (SelRank), and second-order perspective reasoning (ToMAcc); all headline numbers are computed on the strict XOR subset (three cells per family, 300 scored items per model). We evaluate nine models spanning flagship and prior-generation closed-source systems, and open-source models from 8B to 12B parameters. GPT-4o and Gemini 3.1 Pro effectively tie for the best composite score (0.728 and 0.727), followed by Gemini 2.5 Pro (0.678). The best open-source model, Gemma 3 12B (0.505), surpasses one prior-generation closed-source system. Text-flip robustness exceeds image-flip robustness for six of nine models, and confidence calibration varies substantially: GPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Pro achieve similar accuracy yet differ sharply in selective prediction quality.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.
Builds on
9 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2024TUBench: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Trustworthiness with Unanswerable Questions5 Oct
Other references · 8
- 2025Qwen3-VL Technical Reportcited by 2,534
- 2025InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Modelscited by 1,769
- 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,696
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
- 2023MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 1,624
- 2023Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Taskscited by 288
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Taskscited by 217
- 2023UNK-VQA: A Dataset and a Probe into the Abstention Ability of Multi-modal Large Modelscited by 23
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025VisRes Bench: On Evaluating the Visual Reasoning Capabilities of VLMs
- 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?
- 2026Hob-VL: A Benchmark for Visually Grounded Boolean Reasoning
- 2024UniBench: Visual Reasoning Requires Rethinking Vision-Language Beyond Scaling
- 2025Believing without Seeing: Quality Scores for Contextualizing Vision-Language Model Explanations
- 2025BLINK-Twice: You see, but do you observe? A Reasoning Benchmark on Visual Perception
- 2026Seeing Is Believing? A Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models on Visual Illusions and Anomalies
- 2026Evidence-RL: Towards Evidence-intensive Visual Reasoning