Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Visual Riddles: a Commonsense and World Knowledge Challenge for Large Vision and Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.19474 v2 pith:G4MIF7YO submitted 2024-07-28 cs.CV cs.CL

Visual Riddles: a Commonsense and World Knowledge Challenge for Large Vision and Language Models

classification cs.CV cs.CL
keywords visualmodelsriddlesbenchmarklanguagevisionaccuracychallenge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Imagine observing someone scratching their arm; to understand why, additional context would be necessary. However, spotting a mosquito nearby would immediately offer a likely explanation for the person's discomfort, thereby alleviating the need for further information. This example illustrates how subtle visual cues can challenge our cognitive skills and demonstrates the complexity of interpreting visual scenarios. To study these skills, we present Visual Riddles, a benchmark aimed to test vision and language models on visual riddles requiring commonsense and world knowledge. The benchmark comprises 400 visual riddles, each featuring a unique image created by a variety of text-to-image models, question, ground-truth answer, textual hint, and attribution. Human evaluation reveals that existing models lag significantly behind human performance, which is at 82% accuracy, with Gemini-Pro-1.5 leading with 40% accuracy. Our benchmark comes with automatic evaluation tasks to make assessment scalable. These findings underscore the potential of Visual Riddles as a valuable resource for enhancing vision and language models' capabilities in interpreting complex visual scenarios.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Understanding Space Is Rocket Science -- Only Top Reasoning Models Can Solve Spatial Understanding Tasks

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new contrastive real-image benchmark shows most vision-language models fail spatial relation tasks, while chain-of-thought reasoning models approach human-level accuracy.