跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+3538新增论文
+2651其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+61新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-04 23:44 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 00:35各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 00:37 — 2026-11-05 00:37(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-04 23:44最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 00:35库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

12,215 已收录论文10,326 AI 相关3,088 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-04 23:39(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38103

The Prestige: Benchmarking Cognitive Visual Reasoning using Magic Tricks

Shuo Wen, Beixi Du, Edwin Meriaux, Junming Shi, Chloe Si, David Meger, Doina Precup, Gregory Dudek

We introduce The Prestige, a video understanding benchmark that probes cognitive visual reasoning through professional magic performances, where deliberate misdirection challenges models to track events and explain unexpected outcomes. The benchmark comprises open-ended questions ranging from temporal and causal understanding to robustness against adversarial questions. Evaluation of leading open-source and proprietary VLMs reveals a substantial gap between even the strongest model and human performance. We also find systematic discrepancies between human and automated grading and identify recurring model failure modes. Ablations further show that models can select correct multiple-choice answers even when they fail to generate correct explanations independently, motivating further investigations into question formats. Together, these findings highlight limitations in both VLM reasoning and its evaluation, underscoring the need for more reliable video understanding models and more rigorous benchmarks.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CV · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗