pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23141 · v1 · pith:MSOJYHGBnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.CV

VisAnalog: A Diagnostic Suite for Visual Concept Transfer on Natural Images

Zhaonan Li , Kyle R. Chickering , Bangzheng Li , Jacob Dineen , Xiao Ye , Zhikun Xu , Shijie Lu , Yuxi Huang
show 8 more authors
Ming Shen Bach Nguyen Jaya Adithya Pavuluri Mau Son Nguyen Sanika Chavan Ngoc Minh Thu Le Muhao Chen Ben Zhou
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords visual analogiesconcept transfervision-language modelsbenchmarktransformation sequencesrelation inferencenatural images
0
0 comments X

The pith

Vision-language models fail to infer visual relations from example transformations on natural images, unlike humans.

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

VisAnalog presents a benchmark where models see images A and B related by a fixed sequence of visual changes, then must apply the same sequence to C to identify D among choices. The suite uses natural images and deterministic operations such as zoom, rotation, flip, quadrant swap, and hue rotation across one to four steps. End-to-end accuracy for both proprietary and open-source models falls well below the level reached when D is shown directly and declines further with added steps, while human accuracy stays near ceiling. A program-conditioned split of the task isolates the step of inferring the A-to-B relation from the step of applying that relation to C, identifying the inference step as the main source of error.

Core claim

Across strong proprietary and open-source VLMs, end-to-end accuracy on VisAnalog is substantially lower than oracle accuracy when D is directly shown, degrades sharply as transformation depth increases, while human performance remains near the ceiling; a program-conditioned evaluation further separates failures of relation inference from failures of transformation application and shows that inferring the visual relation from A to B is the dominant bottleneck, with additional application errors emerging on harder multi-step cases.

What carries the argument

The A:B::C:? analogy format on natural images, generated by applying identical deterministic transformation sequences to paired source images, together with program-conditioned evaluation that isolates relation inference from transformation application.

If this is right

  • Accuracy drops sharply as the number of transformation steps increases from one to four.
  • Relation inference from A to B accounts for most errors, with application errors appearing mainly on multi-step sequences.
  • Both proprietary and open-source models exhibit the same pattern of degradation and bottleneck.
  • Human performance stays near ceiling regardless of depth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Architectures that explicitly represent or learn visual relations may reduce the inference bottleneck observed here.
  • The same controlled transformation format could diagnose whether scaling alone closes the gap or whether new objectives are required.
  • Extending the suite to include semantic rather than purely geometric changes would test whether the bottleneck generalizes beyond low-level operations.

Load-bearing premise

The multiple-choice options and image construction ensure that only correct application of the inferred transformation yields the right answer, with no confounding visual cues or biases introduced by the choice of natural images or the deterministic transformation sequences.

What would settle it

A model reaching near-human end-to-end accuracy across all transformation depths while the program-conditioned split still shows relation inference as the dominant error source would falsify the claim that inference is the primary bottleneck.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23141 by Bach Nguyen, Bangzheng Li, Ben Zhou, Jacob Dineen, Jaya Adithya Pavuluri, Kyle R. Chickering, Mau Son Nguyen, Ming Shen, Muhao Chen, Ngoc Minh Thu Le, Sanika Chavan, Shijie Lu, Xiao Ye, Yuxi Huang, Zhaonan Li, Zhikun Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of the visual analogy questions for our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of end-to-end analogy solving, wrong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A useful test of visual concept learning is not just whether a model can recognize a concept in a single image, but whether it can preserve and manipulate concept-level properties under transformation and transfer them to new scenes. We introduce VisAnalog, a controlled suite for this setting on natural images. Each example instantiates $A\!:\!B::C\!:\,?$: images $B$ and a hidden target image $D$ are produced by applying the same deterministic transformation sequence to source images $A$ and $C$. Given $A$, $B$, and $C$, a model must answer a multiple-choice question about $D$. The benchmark contains 617 human-validated questions spanning one- to four-step transformations such as zoom, quadrant swap, rotation, flip, and hue rotation. Across strong proprietary and open-source VLMs, end-to-end accuracy is substantially lower than oracle accuracy when $D$ is directly shown, and degrades sharply as transformation depth increases, while human performance remains near the ceiling. A program-conditioned evaluation further separates failures of relation inference from failures of transformation application, showing that inferring the visual relation from $A \rightarrow B$ is the dominant bottleneck, with additional application errors emerging on harder multi-step cases. The dataset is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/zli99/VisAnalog.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VisAnalog, a benchmark of 617 human-validated multiple-choice questions for testing visual concept transfer in VLMs via A:B::C:? analogies on natural images. Deterministic transformation sequences (zoom, quadrant swap, rotation, flip, hue rotation) are applied to produce B from A and a hidden D from C; models must select the correct D given A, B, and C. Results indicate substantially lower end-to-end VLM accuracy than oracle (D shown directly) or human performance, with sharp degradation at greater transformation depths; a program-conditioned variant isolates that inferring the relation from A to B is the dominant bottleneck, with some additional application errors on multi-step cases. The dataset is released publicly.

Significance. If the questions require genuine relation inference and transformation application without low-level statistical shortcuts, the benchmark would provide a useful diagnostic for VLM limitations in visual analogy and concept transfer, extending beyond single-image recognition tasks. The public dataset release and the inference-vs-application separation are concrete strengths that would aid reproducibility and targeted model improvement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dataset construction and question generation] The manuscript provides no analysis or controls demonstrating that models cannot solve questions via low-level image statistics (e.g., altered edge histograms after rotation/quadrant swap or color shifts after hue rotation) rather than inferring the intended visual relation. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that relation inference from A→B is the dominant bottleneck (abstract and program-conditioned evaluation).
  2. [Evaluation and human validation] No details are given on distractor construction, statistical testing of option sets, or inter-annotator agreement for the 617 questions. Without these, it is impossible to verify that only correct transformation application yields the right answer and that human validation eliminates model-specific cues.
  3. [Program-conditioned evaluation] The program-conditioned evaluation is described only at a high level; the exact form in which the program is supplied to the model, how inference failures are distinguished from application failures, and any ablation on program quality are not reported, weakening the separation of error types.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states performance degrades with transformation depth but does not report per-depth accuracy numbers or confidence intervals; adding these would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on VisAnalog. The comments highlight areas where additional details and controls would strengthen the manuscript's claims about relation inference as the primary bottleneck. We address each point below and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dataset construction and question generation] The manuscript provides no analysis or controls demonstrating that models cannot solve questions via low-level image statistics (e.g., altered edge histograms after rotation/quadrant swap or color shifts after hue rotation) rather than inferring the intended visual relation. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that relation inference from A→B is the dominant bottleneck (abstract and program-conditioned evaluation).

    Authors: We agree that explicit controls for low-level statistical shortcuts are necessary to support the claim that relation inference is the dominant failure mode. The current manuscript relies on the deterministic nature of the transformations and human validation to argue against shortcuts, but does not include targeted ablations. In revision, we will add a new subsection under Dataset Construction that reports model performance when low-level features (edge histograms, color distributions) are matched across options while disrupting the intended relation, as well as results from feature-based baselines. This will directly test whether the benchmark can be solved without concept-level transfer. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation and human validation] No details are given on distractor construction, statistical testing of option sets, or inter-annotator agreement for the 617 questions. Without these, it is impossible to verify that only correct transformation application yields the right answer and that human validation eliminates model-specific cues.

    Authors: The manuscript states that the 617 questions are human-validated but omits the requested methodological details. We will expand the Dataset Construction and Human Validation sections to describe: (1) how distractors were generated (e.g., by applying incorrect transformations or random perturbations while preserving low-level statistics where possible), (2) any statistical tests performed on option sets to ensure no single option is distinguishable by surface features, and (3) inter-annotator agreement metrics (e.g., Fleiss' kappa or percentage agreement) from the validation process. These additions will allow readers to assess the quality of the multiple-choice format. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Program-conditioned evaluation] The program-conditioned evaluation is described only at a high level; the exact form in which the program is supplied to the model, how inference failures are distinguished from application failures, and any ablation on program quality are not reported, weakening the separation of error types.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the program-conditioned evaluation is presented at a high level in the current version. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection detailing: the precise input format (textual program description vs. executable code snippet), the decision rules used to classify errors as inference versus application (e.g., based on whether the model correctly identifies the transformation sequence from A to B), and any ablations varying program completeness or noise. This will make the separation of error types reproducible and allow readers to evaluate its robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical benchmark with no derivation chain or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper introduces a diagnostic dataset (VisAnalog) and reports direct empirical measurements of VLM performance on it. No equations, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are present. All claims (accuracy gaps, bottleneck identification via program-conditioned splits) are observational results on the constructed questions, with no reduction to inputs by construction. Self-citations are absent from the provided text. This is a standard non-circular evaluation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical benchmark paper; no mathematical model, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5831 in / 1130 out tokens · 26833 ms · 2026-05-25T05:16:03.574613+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Qwen Technical Report

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Can large reason- ing models do analogical reasoning under perceptual uncer- tainty?arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11207, 2025

    Giacomo Camposampiero, Michael Hersche, Roger Watten- hofer, Abu Sebastian, and Abbas Rahimi. Can large reason- ing models do analogical reasoning under perceptual uncer- tainty?arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11207, 2025. 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Janus-Pro: Unified Multimodal Understanding and Generation with Data and Model Scaling

    Xiaokang Chen, Zhiyu Wu, Xingchao Liu, Zizheng Pan, Wen Liu, Zhenda Xie, Xingkai Yu, and Chong Ruan. Janus- pro: Unified multimodal understanding and generation with data and model scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17811,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    On the Measure of Intelligence

    François Chollet. On the measure of intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547, 2019. 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  5. [5]

    Emerging Properties in Unified Multimodal Pretraining

    Chaorui Deng, Deyao Zhu, Kunchang Li, Chenhui Gou, Feng Li, Zeyu Wang, Shu Zhong, Weihao Yu, Xiaonan Nie, Ziang Song, et al. Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14683, 2025. 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Blink: Multimodal large language models can see but not perceive

    Xingyu Fu, Yushi Hu, Bangzheng Li, Yu Feng, Haoyu Wang, Xudong Lin, Dan Roth, Noah A Smith, Wei-Chiu Ma, and Ranjay Krishna. Blink: Multimodal large language models can see but not perceive. InEuropean Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 148–166. Springer, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science, 7(2):155–170, 1983

    Dedre Gentner. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy.Cognitive Science, 7(2):155–170, 1983. 2

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answer- ing

    Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Ba- tra, and Devi Parikh. Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answer- ing. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6904–6913, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Lewis, and Joyce Chai

    Xiaoyang Hu, Shane Storks, Richard L. Lewis, and Joyce Chai. In-context analogical reasoning with pre-trained lan- guage models. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    What’s" up" with vision-language models? investigating their strug- gle with spatial reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19785,

    Amita Kamath, Jack Hessel, and Kai-Wei Chang. What’s" up" with vision-language models? investigating their strug- gle with spatial reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19785,

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international confer- ence on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Krawczyk

    Daniel C. Krawczyk. The cognition and neuroscience of re- lational reasoning.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6:64,

    work page

  13. [13]

    Rover: Benchmarking reciprocal cross- modal reasoning for omnimodal generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01163, 2025

    Yongyuan Liang, Wei Chow, Feng Li, Ziqiao Ma, Xiyao Wang, Jiageng Mao, Jiuhai Chen, Jiatao Gu, Yue Wang, and Furong Huang. Rover: Benchmarking reciprocal cross- modal reasoning for omnimodal generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01163, 2025. 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge

    Kenneth Marino, Mohammad Rastegari, Ali Farhadi, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge. InProceedings of the IEEE/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3195–3204, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Comparing humans, gpt-4, and gpt-4v on abstraction and reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09247, 2023

    Melanie Mitchell, Alessandro B Palmarini, and Arseny Moskvichev. Comparing humans, gpt-4, and gpt-4v on abstraction and reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09247, 2023. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    The conceptarc benchmark: Evaluating under- standing and generalization in the arc domain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07141, 2023

    Arseny Moskvichev, Victor Vikram Odouard, and Melanie Mitchell. The conceptarc benchmark: Evaluating under- standing and generalization in the arc domain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07141, 2023. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Is analogi- cal reasoning just another measure of executive functioning? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4:180, 2010

    Lindsey Engle Richland and Robert G Morrison. Is analogi- cal reasoning just another measure of executive functioning? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4:180, 2010. 2

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    A-okvqa: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowl- edge

    Dustin Schwenk, Apoorv Khandelwal, Christopher Clark, Kenneth Marino, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. A-okvqa: A benchmark for visual question answering using world knowl- edge. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 146–162. Springer, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Kvqa: Knowledge-aware visual question answering

    Sanket Shah, Anand Mishra, Naganand Yadati, and Partha Pratim Talukdar. Kvqa: Knowledge-aware visual question answering. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 8876–8884, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler

    Roger N. Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.Science, 171(3972):701–703,

    work page

  21. [21]

    Mind the gap: Benchmarking spatial reasoning in vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19707,

    Ilias Stogiannidis, Steven McDonagh, and Sotirios A Tsaf- taris. Mind the gap: Benchmarking spatial reasoning in vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19707,

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Fvqa: Fact-based visual question an- swering.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(10):2413–2427, 2017

    Peng Wang, Qi Wu, Chunhua Shen, Anthony Dick, and An- ton Van Den Hengel. Fvqa: Fact-based visual question an- swering.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(10):2413–2427, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Holyoak, and Hongjing Lu

    Taylor Webb, Keith J. Holyoak, and Hongjing Lu. Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(33):e2300487120,

    work page

  24. [24]

    Show-o: One Single Transformer to Unify Multimodal Understanding and Generation

    Jinheng Xie, Weijia Mao, Zechen Bai, David Junhao Zhang, Weihao Wang, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Yuchao Gu, Zhijie Chen, Zhenheng Yang, and Mike Zheng Shou. Show-o: One single transformer to unify multimodal understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12528, 2024. 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Blink-twice: You see, but do you observe? a reasoning benchmark on visual perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09361, 2025

    Junyan Ye, Dongzhi Jiang, Jun He, Baichuan Zhou, Zi- long Huang, Zhiyuan Yan, Hongsheng Li, Conghui He, and Weijia Li. Blink-twice: You see, but do you observe? a reasoning benchmark on visual perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09361, 2025. 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    AnaloBench: Benchmarking the identification of abstract and long-context analogies

    Xiao Ye, Andrew Wang, Jacob Choi, Yining Lu, Shreya Sharma, Lingfeng Shen, Vijay Murari Tiyyala, Nicholas An- drews, and Daniel Khashabi. AnaloBench: Benchmarking the identification of abstract and long-context analogies. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pages 13060–13082, Miami, Florida, USA, 20...

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    V oila: Evaluation of MLLMs for perceptual understanding and analogical reasoning

    Nilay Yilmaz, Maitreya Patel, Yiran Lawrence Luo, Tejas Gokhale, Chitta Baral, Suren Jayasuriya, and Yezhou Yang. V oila: Evaluation of MLLMs for perceptual understanding and analogical reasoning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Raven: A dataset for relational and analogical vi- sual reasoning

    Chi Zhang, Feng Gao, Baoxiong Jia, Yixin Zhu, and Song- Chun Zhu. Raven: A dataset for relational and analogical vi- sual reasoning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5317– 5327, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    How far are we from intelligent visual deductive reasoning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04732, 2024

    Yizhe Zhang, He Bai, Ruixiang Zhang, Jiatao Gu, Shuangfei Zhai, Josh Susskind, and Navdeep Jaitly. How far are we from intelligent visual deductive reasoning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04732, 2024. 2 A. Model Prompts Question Generation ========================

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    You are given: - C: the source image

    Context and Inputs ======================== You are a question generator that writes exactly one diagnostic multiple-choice question (MCQ) about the target image D. You are given: - C: the source image. - D: the ground-truth target image produced by applying a sequence of transformations to C. - Sigma = [tau_1, tau_2, ..., tau_k]: an ordered list of trans...

    work page

  32. [32]

    Objective ========================

    work page

  33. [33]

    Understand the visual consequences that distinguish D from C via Sigma

    work page

  34. [34]

    transformation,

    Write one self-contained MCQ about D that: - Makes sense on its own. - Never mentions C, D, "transformation," "analogy ," or step names. - Requires correct simulation of the full sequence of transformations to answer. - Is not answerable from C alone, generic priors, or an incorrect visualization of the target image

    work page

  35. [35]

    Provide four options, labeled A, B, C, and D, with exactly one correct answer

    work page

  36. [36]

    Make each distractor a plausible outcome of a specific mis-simulation: omitted step, wrong order, or wrong interpretation

    work page

  37. [37]

    ================================

    Provide an explanation proving why the correct option is uniquely true in D and diagnosing each distractor. ================================

    work page

  38. [38]

    becomes,

    Hard Leak-Prevention Rules ================================ Never reveal, hint at, or imply any of the following in the question or options: - The existence of transformations, Sigma, step types , or operation names. - Any verbs or phrases that imply change or causality , e.g., "becomes," "turned," "after," "before," "now," "transformed," "once rotated," ...

    work page

  39. [39]

    The correct answer must hinge on the effects of the transformation sequence that produces D

    Robustness and Diagnostic Power ================================== - Not answerable from C alone or generic priors. The correct answer must hinge on the effects of the transformation sequence that produces D. - Plausible failure modes. Write distractors that reflect realistic mis-visualizations, e.g., skipped steps, wrong order, or wrong magnitude, so the...

    work page

  40. [40]

    rationale

    Output Format ============================= Print exactly this JSON object, with no extra text and no code fences: { "rationale": "<brief reasoning: which consequences of C -> D are targeted; why solving requires the entire sequence; how each distractor challenges an incorrect or inaccurate visualizer>", "question": "<one single-sentence MCQ about D; no m...

    work page