mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evolution of Accuracy and Visual-Cognitive Errors in a Decade of Vision-Language AI Models

arXiv 2607.09654 ↗First posted 10 Jul 2026cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Multimodal reasoning

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Vision language models (VLMs) have made remarkable progress in visual reasoning during the last decade. Most evaluations have used simple scenes (MS-COCO) that do not showcase complex human interactions or behaviors, only a handful of non-curated human descriptions as a benchmark, and have not focused on understanding the model's error types. Here, we introduce the Complex Social Behavior (CSB) dataset, containing 100 images depicting complex social interactions/behaviors. We analyze the progression of scene descriptions over a decade (2017-2025) of VLMs (four pre-Multimodal Large Language Models, MLLMs, and five MLLMs). We evaluate the accuracy of the models and 20 human descriptions relative to a gold standard on the CSB dataset and on a sample from MS-COCO. We analyzed five visual-cognitive error types: object detection, recognition, hallucination, scene understanding, and spatial dependence. The CSB dataset showed a more pronounced improvement than MS-COCO in scene description accuracy, with pre-MLLMs achieving much lower accuracy than the bottom-ranked human descriptions and MLLMs attaining accuracies similar to the top-ranked human descriptions. We show that MLLMs have eliminated the gap in scene description accuracy between simpler MS-COCO scenes and scenes depicting complex behaviors (CSB). MLLMs have almost eliminated all error types in our tested datasets, except for occasionally relying on different image regions for scene descriptions than humans do (spatial dependence error). We also show that detection, recognition, and hallucination errors have the highest impact on scene description accuracy. Together, our findings provide a more thorough evaluation of how visual language models have advanced over the last decade.

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 34 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2026.

Builds on

34 of 57 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2022VQA and Visual Reasoning: An Overview of Recent Datasets, Methods and Challenges26 Dec

Other references · 33

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  3. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  4. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  5. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  6. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  7. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  8. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,175
  9. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,489
  10. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
  11. 2017Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention for Image Captioning and Visual Question Answeringcited by 1,310
  12. 2020Oscar: Object-Semantics Aligned Pre-training for Vision-Language Taskscited by 1,213
21 more
  1. 2023Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Surveycited by 834
  2. 2024Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMscited by 719
  3. 2018From Recognition to Cognition: Visual Commonsense Reasoningcited by 553
  4. 2021Pre-Trained Models: Past, Present and Futurecited by 319
  5. 2022A Survey of Vision-Language Pre-Trained Modelscited by 177
  6. 2016Visual Question Answering: A Survey of Methods and Datasetscited by 123
  7. 2017A Study and Comparison of Human and Deep Learning Recognition Performance Under Visual Distortionscited by 107
  8. 2017Recent Advances in Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 89
  9. 2024RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMscited by 89
  10. 2024Explainable and Interpretable Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 52
  11. 2023Do LVLMs Understand Charts? Analyzing and Correcting Factual Errors in Chart Captioningcited by 47
  12. 2019Describing like humans: on diversity in image captioningcited by 46
  13. 2016Re-evaluating Automatic Metrics for Image Captioningcited by 45
  14. 2020Towards Unique and Informative Captioning of Imagescited by 25
  15. 2021Occlusion Handling in Generic Object Detection: A Reviewcited by 25
  16. 2024XAI meets LLMs: A Survey of the Relation between Explainable AI and Large Language Modelscited by 23
  17. 2022Automated Testing of Image Captioning Systemscited by 12
  18. 2019Assessment of Faster R-CNN in Man-Machine collaborative searchcited by 5
  19. 2021Gaze Perception in Humans and CNN-Based Modelcited by 2
  20. 2026The Limits of Learning from Pictures and Text: Vision-Language Models and Embodied Scene Understandingcited by 2
  21. 2024Convolutional Neural Network Model Observers Discount Signal-like Anatomical Structures During Search in Virtual Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Phantomscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024MVP-Bench: Can Large Vision--Language Models Conduct Multi-level Visual Perception Like Humans?
  2. 2025VIBE: Can a VLM Read the Room?
  3. 2024HumanVLM: Foundation for Human-Scene Vision-Language Model
  4. 2025VLURes: Benchmarking VLM Visual and Linguistic Understanding in Low-Resource Languages
  5. 2026Can Vision-Language Models Analyze Human-Centered Video? Mapping Model Capabilities and Human-AI Collaborative Workflows
  6. 2022Towards the Human Global Context: Does the Vision-Language Model Really Judge Like a Human Being?
  7. 2025CIVET: Systematic Evaluation of Understanding in VLMs
  8. 2025VKnowU: Evaluating Visual Knowledge Understanding in Multimodal LLMs