Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Beyond the Visible: Benchmarking Occlusion Perception in Multimodal Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces O-Bench, a visual question answering benchmark showing that twenty-two multimodal large language models all underperform humans at occlusion perception, and that the gap persists with scaling and longer reasoning.

desk verdict O-Bench is a plausible and useful occlusion-perception benchmark with a strong human baseline, but the full text is unreadable in this copy and the central negative result rests on construct validity we cannot check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04059 v1 pith:JC3BFIJV submitted 2025-08-06 cs.CV

Zhaochen Liu , Kaiwen Gao , Shuyi Liang , Bin Xiao , Limeng Qiao , Lin Ma , Tingting Jiang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords occlusionperceptionmultimodallargelanguagemodelsO-BenchbenchmarkvisualquestionansweringlayeredimagesynthesisSA-1Bhumanbaselinecomparisonfailuremodeanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces O-Bench, a visual question answering benchmark built to test whether multimodal large language models can perceive and reason about partially hidden objects. Using 1,365 images composed from SA-1B segment masks, the authors created 4,588 question-answer pairs across five occlusion-specific tasks, and scored 22 MLLMs against a human baseline. The central finding is that every tested model falls short of humans, and the shortfall does not shrink when models are scaled up or given more time to reason. The paper argues this indicates a structural limitation in how current models represent occluded scenes, and identifies three recurring failure modes: an overly conservative bias, fragile gestalt completion, and poor performance on quantitative occlusion questions. If the benchmark is valid, it gives the field a targeted evaluation tool and a concrete agenda for improving occlusion perception.

What carries the argument

The central object is the layered synthesis pipeline: the benchmark builds occlusion scenes by taking object segment masks from SA-1B and compositing them into semantically coherent arrangements, so that each image has known ground-truth occlusion structure. This provides controllable, minimally ambiguous occlusion scenarios whose correct answers require genuine occlusion reasoning. The five task types and the semi-automatic annotation workflow turn these composites into a VQA benchmark with 4,588 question-answer pairs.

What would settle it

On a sample of O-Bench items, replace the synthetic occluder with a real photograph of an occluding object matched for lighting and edge statistics, keeping the question unchanged. If model accuracy rises substantially on the same items, the reported gap is partly an artifact of low-level compositing differences rather than occlusion perception.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that occlusion perception—the ability to infer the presence, shape, and layout of objects that are partially hidden—is a distinct visual capability in which current multimodal large language models are systematically deficient. The authors report that across 22 representative models, performance on O-Bench is substantially below the human baseline, and that this gap persists across model scales and with extended reasoning or 'thinking process.' They attribute this to a fundamental limitation in models' visual reasoning rather than to insufficient compute, and they characterize the failures as an overly conservative bias, fragile gestalt prediction (incomplete or

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's claim rests on assuming its composited images really require occlusion reasoning, not just guessing from seams, lighting mismatches, or question wording.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current multimodal large language models, including large and reasoning-augmented models, cannot match human accuracy on occlusion perception tasks.
  • The gap is not a compute or scale effect, so simply training larger models or adding more inference-time thinking will not close it.
  • Three failure modes—overly conservative bias, fragile gestalt prediction, and weak quantitative judgments—can serve as targeted targets for model improvement.
  • O-Bench provides a reusable, public evaluation tool for future work on occlusion-aware visual reasoning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether the gap is caused by the visual encoder's lack of amodal representations; a natural next test is whether models trained with explicit amodal segmentation or 3D depth supervision close the gap on O-Bench.
  • One way to stress-test the benchmark's construct validity would be to compare model performance on questions about the same scene with and without the occluder: if accuracy drops only when occlusion is present, the task isolates occlusion reasoning.
  • The conservative bias pattern suggests models may default to 'cannot tell' when objects are partially hidden; calibration studies could quantify this and possibly lead to better answer strategies.
  • O-Bench could be extended to dynamic occlusion (video) or to active perception where a model chooses a new viewpoint, testing whether the limitation is in static inference or in requesting more information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces O-Bench, a visual question answering benchmark for occlusion perception. The benchmark is constructed from SA-1B images using a layered synthesis approach, yielding 1,365 images and 4,588 QA pairs across five tasks. The authors evaluate 22 multimodal large language models against a human baseline and report a significant performance gap that, they claim, is not sufficiently bridged by model scaling or thinking processes. They also identify three failure patterns: an overly conservative bias, fragile gestalt prediction, and difficulty with quantitative tasks. The benchmark is planned for public release.

Significance. If the central claim holds, O-Bench would be a valuable community resource and the finding that the human-model gap is insensitive to scale and reasoning effort is a substantive, falsifiable statement about current MLLMs. The paper's strengths include a concrete benchmark construction, a broad model suite, a human baseline, and an attempt to characterize failure modes. The claim is externally measurable and therefore testable rather than circular. The main risk is construct validity: whether O-Bench measures occlusion reasoning rather than sensitivity to artifacts of synthetic composition. The paper currently provides insufficient evidence on this point, and the strong scaling/thinking-invariance conclusion depends on this evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Benchmark Construction section] The central claim that MLLMs have a structural deficit in occlusion perception assumes that O-Bench isolates occlusion reasoning. The abstract mentions a 'layered synthesis approach' and a 'reliable, semi-automatic workflow,' but no evidence is provided that models cannot solve the task using low-level compositing artifacts (e.g., seams, lighting mismatches, or atypical object arrangements). The manuscript should report a control analysis: for example, compare performance on composite images against the same images with the occluder removed, or ablate the synthesis pipeline, and demonstrate that errors track occlusion complexity rather than artifact presence. Without this, the reported human-model gap could misattribute failure to occlusion perception.
  2. [Abstract; Experiments section] The abstract states there is a 'significant performance gap' between MLLMs and humans, but no quantitative results, confidence intervals, or inter-annotator agreement are reported in the summary. The paper needs to provide the human baseline size, per-question agreement (e.g., Fleiss' kappa), and statistical testing (e.g., paired bootstrap or Wilcoxon) to establish that the gap is not within annotation noise or due to ambiguous QA pairs. This is load-bearing because the headline conclusion depends on the gap being real and attributable to occlusion perception.
  3. [Abstract; Model scaling and thinking analysis] The claim that the gap 'cannot be sufficiently bridged by model scaling or thinking process' is a strong negative result. The manuscript should specify the exact model sizes, the definition of 'thinking process' (e.g., chain-of-thought prompting, self-consistency, or inference-time compute), and the criterion for 'sufficiently.' A trend plot across at least three distinct model families with monotonically increasing scale, and an apples-to-apples comparison with and without reasoning prompts, is needed. The current abstract-level description does not rule out that a different prompting strategy or larger model would close the gap.
  4. [Evaluation protocol; Benchmark Construction] Because the benchmark is built from SA-1B, which may appear in MLLM training corpora, the paper should address potential contamination. The authors should report near-duplicate image search against common training sets, or demonstrate that models do not perform anomalously well on any subset, and describe any test-set access restrictions. If templated QA generation is used, a leakage check for the exact question templates is also necessary. This concern is central to interpreting the absolute performance numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The terms 'overly conservative bias' and 'fragile gestalt prediction' are used without operational definitions. Please provide concrete examples and quantitative criteria for each failure pattern.
  2. [Benchmark tasks] Clarify the distribution of the 4,588 QA pairs across the five tasks and whether the human baseline and model evaluations are balanced per task. Reporting per-task accuracy with confidence intervals would help readers assess whether the overall gap is driven by one task.
  3. [Full text] The manuscript text supplied for review is heavily garbled in places, which prevents independent verification of the methods and tables. Please ensure a readable version is provided with the submission.
  4. [Limitations] The limitations section should explicitly acknowledge the synthetic-to-real transfer risk and state whether real-world occlusion images were used for validation. This is closely tied to the construct-validity concern and should be addressed in the paper body, not only a future-work sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: O-Bench is an external benchmark evaluation, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical measurement: 22 MLLMs are evaluated on a newly constructed VQA benchmark and compared against a human baseline, yielding a performance gap that scaling and thinking do not close. This is external benchmarking, not a first-principles derivation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The benchmark images are built via layered synthesis of SA-1B masks and annotated through a semi-automatic workflow, but the evaluation and failure-pattern analysis are separate from the construction; the human-model gap is not baked into the construction by any equation or definition. I found no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The only substantive risk is construct validity—whether the synthetic composites actually isolate occlusion reasoning rather than low-level compositing artifacts—but that is a correctness concern about benchmark design, not circularity in the derivation chain. The abstract's own description of the method is too sparse to establish equivalence between the benchmark's construction and its conclusions, and there is no visible step where the prediction is equivalent to the input by definition. Score 1 reflects the mild benchmark-validity caveat, not demonstrated circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted numbers appear in the abstract. The scale choices (1,365 images, 4,588 QA pairs, five tasks, 22 models) are design decisions rather than parameters fitted to an external target, so they are not listed as free parameters. No new physical or mechanistic entities are postulated; O-Bench is a dataset artifact, not an invented explanatory mechanism.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Layered synthesis of SA-1B object segments yields semantically coherent occlusion scenarios that are a valid proxy for real-world occlusion.
    The abstract's construction claim. If models exploit compositing artifacts (edges, blending seams, inconsistent lighting), the measured gap would overstate real occlusion failure. Not checkable from the abstract.
  • domain assumption The five tailored VQA tasks jointly cover the construct of occlusion perception.
    Benchmark construct validity: the abstract lists five tasks but does not define them, so the review cannot tell whether they isolate occlusion from general visual reasoning or scene statistics.
  • domain assumption Human answers from the semi-automatic annotation workflow are unambiguous ground truth.
    The human baseline is the reference for the performance gap. Annotation reliability (for example inter-annotator agreement) is not reported in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Visible: Benchmarking Occlusion Perception in Multimodal Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JC3BFIJV

@misc{pith2026250804059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Visible: Benchmarking Occlusion Perception in Multimodal Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JC3BFIJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04059}
}
read the original abstract

Occlusion perception, a critical foundation for human-level spatial understanding, embodies the challenge of integrating visual recognition and reasoning. Though multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, their performance on occlusion perception remains under-explored. To address this gap, we introduce O-Bench, the first visual question answering (VQA) benchmark specifically designed for occlusion perception. Based on SA-1B, we construct 1,365 images featuring semantically coherent occlusion scenarios through a novel layered synthesis approach. Upon this foundation, we annotate 4,588 question-answer pairs in total across five tailored tasks, employing a reliable, semi-automatic workflow. Our extensive evaluation of 22 representative MLLMs against the human baseline reveals a significant performance gap between current MLLMs and humans, which, we find, cannot be sufficiently bridged by model scaling or thinking process. We further identify three typical failure patterns, including an overly conservative bias, a fragile gestalt prediction, and a struggle with quantitative tasks. We believe O-Bench can not only provide a vital evaluation tool for occlusion perception, but also inspire the development of MLLMs for better visual intelligence. Our benchmark will be made publicly available upon paper publication.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MVI-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness to Misleading Visual Inputs in LVLMs

    cs.CV 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    MVI-Bench supplies the first taxonomy and dataset focused on misleading visual inputs to measure LVLM robustness, with tests on 18 models revealing clear weaknesses.

  2. DRIVESPATIAL: A Benchmark for Spatiotemporal Intelligence in VLMs for Autonomous Driving

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    DriveSpatial benchmark shows the best of 15 VLMs trails humans by 28.4 points on spatiotemporal driving tasks, with cognitive scene construction as the main failure mode.

  3. DRIVESPATIAL: A Benchmark for Spatiotemporal Intelligence in VLMs for Autonomous Driving

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    DriveSpatial benchmark shows the strongest of 15 VLMs trails humans by 28.4 points on spatiotemporal tasks, with cognitive scene construction as the primary weakness.

  4. MVI-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness to Misleading Visual Inputs in LVLMs

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 1,248-instance paired benchmark shows 18 vision-language models drop substantially in accuracy when images contain misleading visual cues.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ao, J.; Jiang, Y.; Ke, Q.; and Ehinger, K. A. 2025. Open-world amodal appearance completion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6490--6499

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Ao, J.; Ke, Q.; and Ehinger, K. A. 2023. Image amodal completion: A survey. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 229: 103661

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bai, S.; Chen, K.; Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Ge, W.; Song, S.; Dang, K.; Wang, P.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; et al. 2025. Qwen2.5-VL technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Chen, B.; Xu, Z.; Kirmani, S.; Ichter, B.; Sadigh, D.; Guibas, L.; and Xia, F. 2024 a . SpatialVLM: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14455--14465

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, K.; Ramanan, D.; and Khurana, T. 2025. Using diffusion priors for video amodal segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22890--22900

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Chen, L.; Li, J.; Dong, X.; Zhang, P.; Zang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Duan, H.; Wang, J.; Qiao, Y.; Lin, D.; et al. 2024 b . Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision-language models? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 27056--27087

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Comanici, G.; Bieber, E.; Schaekermann, M.; Pasupat, I.; Sachdeva, N.; Dhillon, I.; Blistein, M.; Ram, O.; Zhang, D.; Rosen, E.; et al. 2025. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv ...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S.; Salehi, M.; Muennighoff, N.; Lo, K.; Soldaini, L.; et al

    Deitke, M.; Clark, C.; Lee, S.; Tripathi, R.; Yang, Y.; Park, J. S.; Salehi, M.; Muennighoff, N.; Lo, K.; Soldaini, L.; et al. 2025. Molmo and Pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer V...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Ehsani, K.; Mottaghi, R.; and Farhadi, A. 2018. SeGAN: Segmenting and generating the invisible. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6144--6153

    2018

  4. [12]

    o nig, R.; H \

    Follmann, P.; K \"o nig, R.; H \"a rtinger, P.; Klostermann, M.; and B \"o ttger, T. 2019. Learning to see the invisible: End-to-end trainable amodal instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 1328--1336. IEEE

    2019

  5. [13]

    Hong, W.; Yu, W.; Gu, X.; Wang, G.; Gan, G.; Tang, H.; Cheng, J.; Qi, J.; Ji, J.; Pan, L.; et al. 2025. GLM-4.1V-Thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01006

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hsieh, C.-Y.; Khurana, T.; Dave, A.; and Ramanan, D. 2023. Tracking any object amodally. CoRR

    2023

  7. [15]

    P.; Perelman, A.; Ramesh, A.; Clark, A.; Ostrow, A.; Welihinda, A.; Hayes, A.; Radford, A.; et al

    Hurst, A.; Lerer, A.; Goucher, A. P.; Perelman, A.; Ramesh, A.; Clark, A.; Ostrow, A.; Welihinda, A.; Hayes, A.; Radford, A.; et al. 2024. GPT-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kamath, A.; Hessel, J.; and Chang, K.-W. 2023. What ' s ``up'' with vision-language models? Investigating their struggle with spatial reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 9161--9175

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kanizsa, G.; Legrenzi, P.; and Bozzi, P. 1979. Organization in vision: Essays on Gestalt perception. Praeger Publishers

    1979

  10. [18]

    Kar, A.; Tulsiani, S.; Carreira, J.; and Malik, J. 2015. Amodal completion and size constancy in natural scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 127--135

    2015

  11. [19]

    Ke, L.; Tai, Y.-W.; and Tang, C.-K. 2021. Deep occlusion-aware instance segmentation with overlapping bilayers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4019--4028

    2021

  12. [20]

    J.; and Shipley, T

    Kellman, P. J.; and Shipley, T. F. 1991. A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive psychology, 23(2): 141--221

    1991

  13. [21]

    J.; and Spelke, E

    Kellman, P. J.; and Spelke, E. S. 1983. Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy. Cognitive psychology, 15(4): 483--524

    1983

  14. [22]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4015--4026

    2023

  15. [23]

    K \"o hler, W. 1929. Gestalt psychology. Liveright

    1929

  16. [24]

    Li, B.; Ge, Y.; Ge, Y.; Wang, G.; Wang, R.; Zhang, R.; and Shan, Y. 2024. SEED-Bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13299--13308

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023. BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  18. [26]

    Li, K.; and Malik, J. 2016. Amodal instance segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 677--693

    2016

  19. [27]

    W.; and Fidler, S

    Ling, H.; Acuna, D.; Kreis, K.; Kim, S. W.; and Fidler, S. 2020. Variational amodal object completion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 16246--16257

    2020

  20. [28]

    Liu, F.; Emerson, G.; and Collier, N. 2023. Visual spatial reasoning. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11: 635--651

    2023

  21. [29]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; and Lee, Y. J. 2024 a . Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 26296--26306

    2024

  22. [30]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Wu, Q.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 34892--34916

    2023

  23. [31]

    L.; XiXuan, S.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Lai, H.; Sun, J.; Yang, X.; et al

    Liu, X.; Zhang, T.; Gu, Y.; Iong, I. L.; XiXuan, S.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Lai, H.; Sun, J.; Yang, X.; et al. 2025. VisualAgentBench: Towards large multimodal models as visual foundation agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  24. [32]

    Liu, Y.; Duan, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, B.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, W.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, J.; He, C.; Liu, Z.; et al. 2024 b . MMBench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 216--233

    2024

  25. [33]

    Lu, P.; Bansal, H.; Xia, T.; Liu, J.; Li, C.; Hajishirzi, H.; Cheng, H.; Chang, K.-W.; Galley, M.; and Gao, J. 2024. MathVista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  26. [34]

    Majumdar, A.; Ajay, A.; Zhang, X.; Putta, P.; Yenamandra, S.; Henaff, M.; Silwal, S.; Mcvay, P.; Maksymets, O.; Arnaud, S.; et al. 2024. OpenEQA: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Michotte, A.; Thin \`e s, G.; and Crabb \'e , G. 1964. Les compl \'e ments amodaux des structures perceptives . Studia psychologica. Louvain Institut de psychologie de l'universit \'e de Louvain

    1964

  28. [36]

    Ozguroglu, E.; Liu, R.; Sur \' s, D.; Chen, D.; Dave, A.; Tokmakov, P.; and Vondrick, C. 2024. pix2gestalt: Amodal segmentation by synthesizing wholes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3931--3940

    2024

  29. [37]

    Qi, L.; Jiang, L.; Liu, S.; Shen, X.; and Jia, J. 2019. Amodal instance segmentation with KINS dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3014--3023

    2019

  30. [38]

    M.; Xing, E.; Yang, M.-H.; and Khan, F

    Rasheed, H.; Maaz, M.; Shaji, S.; Shaker, A.; Khan, S.; Cholakkal, H.; Anwer, R. M.; Xing, E.; Yang, M.-H.; and Khan, F. S. 2024. GLaMM: Pixel grounding large multimodal model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13009--13018

    2024

  31. [39]

    G.; Yu, X.; Haf, R.; and Li, Y.-F

    Shiri, F.; Guo, X.-Y.; Far, M. G.; Yu, X.; Haf, R.; and Li, Y.-F. 2024. An empirical analysis on spatial reasoning capabilities of large multimodal models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 21440--21455

    2024

  32. [40]

    Wang, A.; Sun, Y.; Kortylewski, A.; and Yuille, A. L. 2020. Robust object detection under occlusion with context-aware compositionalnets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 12645--12654

    2020

  33. [41]

    Wang, J.; Ming, Y.; Shi, Z.; Vineet, V.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; and Joshi, N. 2024. Is a picture worth a thousand words? delving into spatial reasoning for vision language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 75392--75421

    2024

  34. [42]

    Wang, X.; Ma, W.; Li, Z.; Kortylewski, A.; and Yuille, A. L. 2023. 3D-aware visual question answering about parts, poses and occlusions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 58717--58735

    2023

  35. [43]

    M.; Chen, J.; and Yuille, A

    Wang, X.; Ma, W.; Zhang, T.; de Melo, C. M.; Chen, J.; and Yuille, A. 2025. Spatial457: A diagnostic benchmark for 6D spatial reasoning of large mutimodal models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24669--24679

    2025

  36. [44]

    Wu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, E.; Chen, C.; Liao, L.; Wang, A.; Li, C.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; Zhai, G.; et al. 2023. Q-Bench: A benchmark for general-purpose foundation models on low-level vision. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wu, Z.; Chen, X.; Pan, Z.; Liu, X.; Liu, W.; Dai, D.; Gao, H.; Ma, Y.; Wu, C.; Wang, B.; et al. 2024. DeepSeek-VL2: Mixture-of-experts vision-language models for advanced multimodal understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W.; Han, R.; Fei-Fei, L.; and Xie, S

    Yang, J.; Yang, S.; Gupta, A. W.; Han, R.; Fei-Fei, L.; and Xie, S. 2025. Thinking in space: How multimodal large language models see, remember, and recall spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10632--10643

    2025

  39. [47]

    Yang, L.; Kang, B.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, X.; Feng, J.; and Zhao, H. 2024. Depth anything v2. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 21875--21911

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yin, S.; Fu, C.; Zhao, S.; Li, K.; Sun, X.; Xu, T.; and Chen, E. 2024. A survey on multimodal large language models. National Science Review, 11(12): nwae403

    2024

  41. [49]

    Yue, X.; Ni, Y.; Zhang, K.; Zheng, T.; Liu, R.; Zhang, G.; Stevens, S.; Jiang, D.; Ren, W.; Sun, Y.; et al. 2024. MMMU: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert agi. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and ...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zhan, X.; Pan, X.; Dai, B.; Liu, Z.; Lin, D.; and Loy, C. C. 2020. Self-supervised scene de-occlusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3784--3792

    2020

  43. [51]

    Zhang, L.; and Agrawala, M. 2024. Transparent image layer diffusion using latent transparency. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 43(4): 1--15

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zhu, J.; Wang, W.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Z.; Ye, S.; Gu, L.; Tian, H.; Duan, Y.; Su, W.; Shao, J.; et al. 2025. InternVL3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.