# VB: Visibility Benchmark for Visibility and Perspective Reasoning in Images

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06680 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06680/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10355/) (2023)
- [MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13394/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02083/) (2023)
- [UNK-VQA: A Dataset and a Probe into the Abstention Ability of Multi-modal Large Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10942/) (2023)
- [TUBench: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Trustworthiness with Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04107/) (2024)

## 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.