Vision language models are blind

Authors: Pooyan Rahmanzadehgervi, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri, Anh Totti Nguyen

License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2407.06581v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
In their paper titled "Vision language models are blind," authors Pooyan Rahmanzadehgervi, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri, and Anh Totti Nguyen highlight the limitations of large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs) such as GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro. These models excel in many image-text applications and vision-understanding benchmarks but struggle with basic visual tasks that are trivial for humans. The authors conducted a study to assess the performance of four state-of-the-art VLMs on these visual tasks and found them to be shockingly poor. They likened the vision capabilities of these models to that of a person with myopia who sees fine details as blurry or even to an intelligent person making educated guesses while being blind. The code for their study is available at https://vlmsareblind.github.io/. Additionally, the authors discuss existing benchmarks used to evaluate VLMs' vision understanding abilities. These include assessing performance on college-level topics, charts, documents, or videos. While these benchmarks have shown rapid progress in VLMs' performance, they often rely on real-world data that require extensive prior knowledge and can suffer from data leakage issues where VLMs can provide accurate answers without even needing the input image. To address these limitations, the authors propose a new benchmark called BlindTest that focuses on low-level visual tasks that are extremely easy for humans and do not require prior knowledge or complex reasoning. This benchmark aims to provide a more accurate assessment of VLMs' vision capabilities by testing their ability to perceive images like humans do without relying heavily on language processing. Overall, this study sheds light on the challenges faced by current VLMs in basic visual tasks and proposes a new benchmark to better evaluate their vision understanding abilities.
AI-generated keywords: Vision Language Models Limitations Visual Tasks Benchmarks BlindTest

AI-generated Key Points

  • Authors highlight limitations of large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs) like GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro
  • VLMs excel in image-text applications but struggle with basic visual tasks
  • Study found state-of-the-art VLMs performed poorly on visual tasks
  • Vision capabilities of models likened to a person with myopia or an intelligent person making educated guesses while blind
  • Authors propose new benchmark called BlindTest for low-level visual tasks without prior knowledge or complex reasoning
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs), e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro are powering countless image-text applications and scoring high on many vision-understanding benchmarks. Yet, we find that VLMs fail on 7 visual tasks absurdly easy to humans such as identifying (a) whether two circles overlap; (b) whether two lines intersect; (c) which letter is being circled in a word; and (d) counting the number of circles in a Olympic-like logo. The shockingly poor performance of four state-of-the-art VLMs suggests their vision is, at best, like of a person with myopia seeing fine details as blurry, and at worst, like an intelligent person that is blind making educated guesses. Code is available at: https://vlmsareblind.github.io/

Submitted to arXiv on 09 Jul. 2024

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.