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。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 19:44 — 2026-11-04 19:44(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:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

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。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 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。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38926

OneScene-Bench: Do Vision-Language Models Integrate Evidence Across Views?

Swathi Suhas, Anurag Das, Bernt Schiele, Jonas Fischer

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly process multiple views of the same scene, but it remains unclear whether they integrate these observations into a coherent scene-level representation. Existing multi-image evaluations do not isolate this capability, as tasks may admit correct solutions through independent per-view processing without requiring cross-view correspondence. We introduce OneScene-Bench, a controlled benchmark designed to explicitly distinguish when cross-view integration is necessary. Our benchmark evaluates three complementary capabilities on real-world multi-view scenes: unique object counting, cross-view consistency, and spatial reasoning. For counting, we control object overlap across views to separate cases solvable by simple per-view aggregation from those requiring instance-level correspondence. For consistency, we introduce localized edits in shared and view-specific regions, testing whether models distinguish genuine scene contradictions from differences caused by viewpoint and visibility. For spatial reasoning, we construct object relations that require combining spatial evidence across viewpoints to compare physical proximity. We evaluate twelve state-of-the-art open-weight and proprietary VLMs and find that counting accuracy drops substantially on complementary views, ranging from 4.5-50.0%, compared with 45.5-81.5% on complete-overlap examples. Moreover, cross-view consistency remains around 50% across models, including recent proprietary VLMs, despite substantially stronger performance on spatial reasoning. Our results reveal a substantial gap between processing multiple images and integrating evidence across them, highlighting the need for evaluations that explicitly test scene-level multi-view understanding. Code and data are available at https://github.com/swathisuhas/OneScene-Bench.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CV
arXiv ↗PDF ↗