# OccludeBench: Can VLMs Find What's Missing?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13790 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13790/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 37 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [Flamingo: a Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.14198/) (2022)
- [InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06500/) (2023)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.07332/) (2016)
- [VQA: Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.00468/) (2015)
- [MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.06281/) (2023)
- [MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16502/) (2023)
- [Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.09513/) (2022)
- [MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13394/) (2023)
- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [MM-Vet: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models for Integrated Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02490/) (2023)
- [OK-VQA: A Visual Question Answering Benchmark Requiring External Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.00067/) (2019)
- [Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating Large Vision-Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.20330/) (2024)
- [Show-o: One Single Transformer to Unify Multimodal Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12528/) (2024)
- [Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06209/) (2024)
- [A-OKVQA: A Benchmark for Visual Question Answering using World Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01718/) (2022)
- [From Recognition to Cognition: Visual Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.10830/) (2018)
- [BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12390/) (2024)
- [Janus: Decoupling Visual Encoding for Unified Multimodal Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13848/) (2024)
- [VILA-U: a Unified Foundation Model Integrating Visual Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04429/) (2024)
- [Visual Spatial Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.00363/) (2022)
- [PhysBench: Benchmarking and Enhancing Vision-Language Models for Physical World Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.16411/) (2025)
- [Physion: Evaluating Physical Prediction from Vision in Humans and Machines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.08261/) (2021)
- [VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15279/) (2025)
- [Shadow Removal via Shadow Image Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08628/) (2019)
- [Seeing but Not Believing: Probing the Disconnect Between Visual Attention and Answer Correctness in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17771/) (2025)
- [Amodal Ground Truth and Completion in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17247/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How well can vision-language models (VLMs) reason about what is missing from an image? We study this question with OccludeBench, a manually curated benchmark for recovering fully occluded objects from the visual evidence that remains. OccludeBench distinguishes direct cases, where the hidden object must be recovered from a specific physical cue such as a shadow or reflection, from inferential cases, where it can be inferred from broader scene context. Across five VLMs, accuracy averages 42.7% on direct cases versus 62.7% on inferential cases, exhibiting a 20.0-point gap. Humans attain higher accuracies of 63.4% versus 68.5% for direct and inferential images, respectively, with no significant gap. To locate this failure, we introduce OccludeTrace, a four-stage diagnostic that isolates where the visual reasoning process breaks down. The bottleneck emerges when models must recover the relevant object from the projection within the full image: they succeed on only 50% of failed examples, compared with 91% of examples they answer correctly. Extended reasoning, tool use, and few-shot prompting yield inconsistent improvements and do not reliably eliminate the gap. In contrast, an inpaint-then-confront intervention, which prompts models to first generate a candidate hidden object and then evaluate that hypothesis against the visible physical cue, reduces the gap to a statistically non-significant difference for both models with image-generation capabilities. Together, our results establish a tractable, controlled diagnostic for isolating how VLMs reason about visual content that is missing from an image.