跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2604.24589 · v2

A systematic evaluation of vision-language models for observational astronomical reasoning tasks

首次提交 2026-04-27 23:11
版本更新 2026-10-26 15:52
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed as general-purpose tools for scientific data interpretation, yet their reliability on real astronomical observations across diverse modalities remains untested. We present AstroVLBench, a benchmark of over 4,100 expert-verified instances across five tasks spanning optical imaging, radio interferometry, multi-wavelength photometry, time-domain light curves, and optical spectroscopy. We systematically evaluate six state-of-the-art frontier models and find that performance is strongly modality-dependent and uncorrelated with general benchmark rankings. Mechanistic cross-model ablations reveal three concrete bottlenecks. First, prompt grounding exhibits marked model and task dependence: physical guidance yields more balanced classifications on optical imaging, whereas phenomenological prompts better navigate undersampled time-domain data. Second, presenting one-dimensional measurements as numerical tables rather than rendered plots consistently improves light-curve classification across all models by up to 23 percentage points, demonstrating that plot rendering can obscure physically relevant signal. Third, an expert audit of optical spectroscopy reveals a notable "right-answer-wrong-reason" phenomenon: across evaluated models, an average of 26% of correct predictions are accompanied by physically inconsistent or invalid reasoning chains, showing that accuracy alone is insufficient for trustworthy scientific deployment. AstroVLBench provides the first systematic, multi-modal baselines for VLMs in observational astronomy and identifies the representation, grounding, and reasoning bottlenecks that must be addressed before VLMs can be trusted as autonomous scientific interpreters.

作者备注:42 pages, 15 figures, 11 tables. Accepted at NeurIPS 2026, Track on Evaluations and Datasets

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-26 15:52 · 最新观测版本

A systematic evaluation of vision-language models for observational astronomical reasoning tasks

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed as general-purpose tools for scientific data interpretation, yet their reliability on real astronomical observations across diverse modalities remains untested. We present AstroVLBench, a benchmark of over 4,100 expert-verified instances across five tasks spanning optical imaging, radio interferometry, multi-wavelength photometry, time-domain light curves, and optical spectroscopy. We systematically evaluate six state-of-the-art frontier models and find that performance is strongly modality-dependent and uncorrelated with general benchmark rankings. Mechanistic cross-model ablations reveal three concrete bottlenecks. First, prompt grounding exhibits marked model and task dependence: physical guidance yields more balanced classifications on optical imaging, whereas phenomenological prompts better navigate undersampled time-domain data. Second, presenting one-dimensional measurements as numerical tables rather than rendered plots consistently improves light-curve classification across all models by up to 23 percentage points, demonstrating that plot rendering can obscure physically relevant signal. Third, an expert audit of optical spectroscopy reveals a notable "right-answer-wrong-reason" phenomenon: across evaluated models, an average of 26% of correct predictions are accompanied by physically inconsistent or invalid reasoning chains, showing that accuracy alone is insufficient for trustworthy scientific deployment. AstroVLBench provides the first systematic, multi-modal baselines for VLMs in observational astronomy and identifies the representation, grounding, and reasoning bottlenecks that must be addressed before VLMs can be trusted as autonomous scientific interpreters.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗