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

+5756新增论文
+4869其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 03:55 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 04:01各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 04:03 — 2026-11-05 04:03(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:2026-11-05 03:55最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 04:01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。

14,433 已收录论文12,544 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 2026-11-05 03:53(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.40212

Benchmarking color judgment in multimodal LLMs with CIE-computable ground truth

Shuwei Yue, Kaida Xiao, Zhihua Wang, Qiao Chen

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are now used as zero-shot judges of image quality, but their color judgments are rarely tested with colorimetric ground truth. We present a five-task benchmark based on the CIE colorimetric framework: AWB pair judgment, skin-tone bias direction, CCT estimation, CIE Delta E 2000 pair ordering, and color naming under changing illuminants. We test eight MLLM endpoints, including four Qwen3-VL variants, GLM-4.5V, GPT-5.4, Claude-Opus-4.7, and Gemini-3.1-Pro. The models often solve coarse binary AWB judgments, but they remain weak on numeric CCT estimation and on some fine color-difference judgments. On ColorChecker-24 stimuli, the three closed-weight frontier models reach CCT MAE of 715-1056 K, compared with 1358-2133 K for the five open-weight models. A non-ColorChecker control shows that this advantage is partly template-dependent. The results suggest that current MLLMs have useful color words and coarse visual priors, but their color judgments are not reliably calibrated to CIE-computable color differences.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CV
arXiv ↗PDF ↗