Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

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 2508.06585 v2 pith:QHORF3MX submitted 2025-08-08 cs.AI cs.CV

CountQA: How Well Do MLLMs Count in the Wild?

classification cs.AI cs.CV
keywords countqamllmsobjectbenchmarkmodelsreal-worldvisualweakness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate remarkable fluency in understanding visual scenes, yet they exhibit a critical lack in a fundamental cognitive skill: object counting. This blind spot severely limits their reliability in real-world applications. To date, this capability has been largely unevaluated in complex scenarios, as existing benchmarks either feature sparse object densities or are confined to specific visual domains, failing to test models under realistic conditions. Addressing this gap, we introduce CountQA, a challenging new benchmark designed to probe this deficiency. Comprising over 1,500 question-answer pairs, CountQA features real-world images with high object density, clutter, and occlusion. We investigate this weakness by evaluating 15 prominent MLLMs on the CountQA benchmark and reveal that the top-performing model achieves a mere 42.9% accuracy, with performance declining as object counts rise. By providing a dedicated benchmark to diagnose and rectify this core weakness, CountQA paves the way for a new generation of MLLMs that are not only descriptively fluent but also numerically grounded and spatially aware. We will open-source the dataset and code upon paper acceptance to foster further research.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. HoloCount: A Holistic Visual Counting Benchmark for MLLMs

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    HoloCount is a three-tier visual counting benchmark showing that MLLMs fail systematically on analytical reasoning, high-density scenes, and linguistic prior conflicts, with even the best models dropping below 50% acc...

  2. V-Zero: Answer-Label-Free On-Policy Distillation with Contrastive Evidence Gating for Fine-Grained Visual Reasoning

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    V-Zero trains MLLMs for visual reasoning without answer labels by gating on-policy distillation trajectories using contrastive evidence from relevant versus negative image crops.

  3. Explicit Reasoning Makes Better Judges: A Systematic Study on Accuracy, Efficiency, and Robustness

    cs.AI 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Thinking LLMs achieve ~10 percentage points higher accuracy than non-thinking ones on RewardBench with under 2x compute overhead, outperforming augmentation strategies that cost over 8x more while also showing better ...

  4. ABACUS: Adapting Unified Foundation Model for Bridging Image Count Understanding and Generation

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    ABACUS adapts a 3B unified foundation model using density-aware zooming, boundary-aware GRPO, and cycle-consistent self-critique to achieve SOTA on seven counting and generation benchmarks without task-specific training.