arXiv preprint ·
OccludeBench: Can VLMs Find What's Missing?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
How well can vision-language models (VLMs) reason about what is missing from an image? We study this question with OccludeBench, a manually curated benchmark for recovering fully occluded objects from the visual evidence that remains. OccludeBench distinguishes direct cases, where the hidden object must be recovered from a specific physical cue such as a shadow or reflection, from inferential cases, where it can be inferred from broader scene context. Across five VLMs, accuracy averages 42.7% on direct cases versus 62.7% on inferential cases, exhibiting a 20.0-point gap. Humans attain higher accuracies of 63.4% versus 68.5% for direct and inferential images, respectively, with no significant gap. To locate this failure, we introduce OccludeTrace, a four-stage diagnostic that isolates where the visual reasoning process breaks down. The bottleneck emerges when models must recover the relevant object from the projection within the full image: they succeed on only 50% of failed examples, compared with 91% of examples they answer correctly. Extended reasoning, tool use, and few-shot prompting yield inconsistent improvements and do not reliably eliminate the gap. In contrast, an inpaint-then-confront intervention, which prompts models to first generate a candidate hidden object and then evaluate that hypothesis against the visible physical cue, reduces the gap to a statistically non-significant difference for both models with image-generation capabilities. Together, our results establish a tractable, controlled diagnostic for isolating how VLMs reason about visual content that is missing from an image.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computer Vision
When Charts Deceive Web Agents: A Paired Benchmark for Misleading Visualization-Grounded Tasks
Scaling Laws for Multimodal Data Mixtures
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
MemForm: Benchmarking Memory Formation Poisoning in LLM Agents
Fear Is Not Always Fear: Variation in Emotion Label Equivalence Across Datasets
Get the few papers worth your time in Computer Vision every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.