Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for image understanding tasks, yet their practical deployment remains hindered by significant architectural heterogeneity across model families. This paper introduces UVLM (Universal Vision-Language Model Loader), a Google Colab-based framework that provides a unified interface for loading, configuring, and benchmarking multiple VLM architectures on custom image analysis tasks. UVLM currently supports two major model families -- LLaVA-NeXT and Qwen2.5-VL -- which differ fundamentally in their vision encoding, tokenization, and decoding strategies. The framework abstracts these differences behind a single inference function, enabling researchers to compare models using identical prompts and evaluation protocols. Key features include a multi-task prompt builder with support for four response types (numeric, category, boolean, text), a consensus validation mechanism based on majority voting across repeated inferences, a flexible token budget (up to 1,500 tokens) enabling users to design custom reasoning strategies through prompt engineering, and a built-in chain-of-thought reference mode for benchmarking. UVLM is designed for reproducibility, accessibility, and extensibility and as such is freely deployable on Google Colab using consumer-grade GPU resources. The paper also presents the first benchmarking of different VLMs on tasks of increasing reasoning complexity using a corpus of 120 street-view images.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: UVLM software architecture. The notebook is organized into three sequential blocks. Block 1 loads the selected VLM and configures hardware settings, Block 2 defines the analysis tasks through an interactive prompt builder and Block 3 processes all images in a folder and writes results to CSV.
Figure 2: Comparative diagram of the dual-backend inference pipelines in UVLM. Both pipelines receive the same image–prompt pair and converge at the unified response parser.
Family
Model
Params
Checkpoint ID
LLaVA-NeXT
Mistral 7B
7B
llava-hf/llava-v1.6-mistral-7b-hf
Vicuna 7B
7B
llava-hf/llava-v1.6-vicuna-7b-hf
Vicuna 13B
13B
llava-hf/llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b-hf
34B
34B
llava-hf/llava-v1.6-34b-hf
LLaMA3 8B
8B
llava-hf/llama3-llava-next-8b-hf
72B
72B
llava-hf/llava-next-72b-hf
Table 1: Supported VLM checkpoints in UVLM.
Model
GPU
Sec/img std
Sec/img reas
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
T4
0.73
17.23
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
T4
2.17
16.23
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
A100
1.06
60.50
LLaVA Mistral 7B
T4
5.60
26.31
LLaVA Vicuna 7B
T4
3.03
17.99
LLaMA3 LLaVA 8B
L4
1.62
27.16
Table 2: Model configurations tested. GPU indicates the minimum requirement to avoid out-of-memory errors.
Figure 3: Qwen2.5-VL-32B outputs (standard and reasoning) as compared to human annotations for task 1, 2 and 4.
#
Model
N
T1 Veh.
T2 Side.
T3 Entr.
T4 Len.
T5 Veg.
Mean
1
Qwen 32B reas
120
97.7
85.0
90.4
82.5
84.2
88.0
2
Qwen 32B std
120
98.1
80.8
92.3
55.4
89.8
83.3
3
LLaVA Vic7B std
120
95.4
84.2
85.7
76.5
74.0
83.1
4
LLaVA Vic13B std
120
96.1
80.8
86.2
56.0
70.3
77.9
5
Qwen 7B reas
120
95.8
62.5
84.9
73.3
70.7
77.4
6
LLaVA Vic13B reas
120
93.6
65.8
80.7
70.4
74.5
77.0
Table 3: Overall model ranking by proximity score (%). Higher is better. † Reduced sample due to CUDA crashes on T4 (see Section 3.5 ). ‡ Partial benchmark due to prohibitive computation time.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
GPU
Load (min)
Mode
Sec/image
CC*/image
Proximity
Qwen 3B
T4
0.61
Standard
0.73
0.00033
76.0%
Qwen 3B
T4
0.61
Reasoning
17.23
0.00644
76.1%
Qwen 7B
T4
1.11
Standard
2.17
0.00090
75.4%
Qwen 7B
T4
1.11
Reasoning
16.23
0.00779
77.4%
Qwen 32B
A100
3.66
Standard
1.06
0.00519
83.3%
Qwen 32B
A100
3.66
Reasoning
60.50
0.14031
88.0%
Appendix
Table 4: Cost-performance analysis (*computing costs (CC) based on Google Colab GPU)
Model
N
MAE
Bias
Exact
± 1
Correlation
Proximity
Qwen 3B std
60
0.38
-0.38
81.7%
91.7%
0.90
96.5%
Qwen 3B reas
118
0.43
-0.28
70.3%
92.4%
0.88
96.1%
Qwen 7B std
120
0.28
-0.21
80.8%
95.8%
0.92
97.5%
Qwen 7B reas
120
0.47
-0.43
70.8%
92.5%
0.87
95.8%
Qwen 32B std
120
0.21
-0.11
81.7%
98.3%
0.96
98.1%
Qwen 32B reas
120
0.25
-0.20
81.7%
95.0%
0.95
97.7%
Appendix
Table 5: Task 1: Motor Vehicles
Model
N
Accuracy
Sensitivity
Specificity
Cohen κ
Proximity
Qwen 3B std
60
75.0%
93.0%
29.4%
0.27
75.0%
Qwen 3B reas
118
56.8%
63.6%
21.1%
-0.11
56.8%
Qwen 7B std
120
40.0%
31.7%
84.2%
0.07
40.0%
Qwen 7B reas
120
62.5%
62.4%
63.2%
0.15
62.5%
Qwen 32B std
120
80.8%
90.1%
31.6%
0.23
80.8%
Qwen 32B reas
120
85.0%
97.0%
21.1%
0.24
85.0%
Appendix
Table 6: Task 2: Sidewalk
Model
N
MAE
Bias
Exact
± 1
Correlation
Proximity
Qwen 3B std
60
1.35
-1.28
26.7%
61.7%
0.67
77.5%
Qwen 3B reas
118
1.16
-0.92
37.3%
72.9%
0.44
85.5%
Qwen 7B std
120
0.88
-0.67
45.0%
79.2%
0.71
89.0%
Qwen 7B reas
120
1.24
-0.59
34.2%
70.8%
0.56
84.9%
Qwen 32B std
120
0.62
-0.28
50.0%
90.8%
0.84
92.3%
Qwen 32B reas
120
0.77
-0.42
49.2%
84.2%
0.71
90.4%
Appendix
Table 7: Task 3: Pedestrian Entrances
Model
N
MAE (m)
Bias (m)
MAPE %
± 10m
Correlation
Proximity
Qwen 3B std
60
11.4
6.1
81.8
73.3%
-0.14
70.1%
Qwen 3B reas
118
13.0
5.2
81.5
61.9%
0.08
66.5%
Qwen 7B std
120
10.5
7.7
63.8
74.2%
0.41
70.1%
Qwen 7B reas
120
9.0
-6.2
47.3
69.2%
0.29
73.3%
Qwen 32B std
120
16.5
16.0
106.1
50.0%
0.49
55.4%
Qwen 32B reas
120
5.8
0.1
35.8
85.0%
0.48
82.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Task 4: Street Frontage Length
Model
N
Exact
± 1 class
MAE class
κ linear
Proximity
Qwen 3B std
60
38.3%
43.3%
1.97
0.26
60.7%
Qwen 3B reas
118
37.3%
57.6%
1.23
0.31
75.4%
Qwen 7B std
120
47.5%
63.3%
0.97
0.42
80.7%
Qwen 7B reas
120
26.7%
36.7%
1.47
0.18
70.7%
Qwen 32B std
120
68.3%
80.8%
0.51
0.64
89.8%
Qwen 32B reas
120
55.8%
66.7%
0.79
0.54
84.2%
Appendix
Table 9: Task 5: Vegetation Type
Model pair
Vehicles
Sidewalk
Entrances
Length
Vegetation
Mean Δ
Verdict
Qwen 3B std → Qwen 3B reas
-0.4%
-18.2%
+8.0%
-3.6%
+14.8%
+0.1%
Neutral
Qwen 7B std → Qwen 7B reas
-1.7%
+22.5%
-4.1%
+3.2%
-10.0%
+2.0%
Helps
Qwen 32B std → Qwen 32B reas
-0.4%
+4.2%
-1.9%
+27.1%
-5.7%
+4.7%
Helps
LLaVA Mis7B std → LLaVA Mis7B reas
-1.8%
+25.0%
-1.9%
-9.5%
-17.5%
-1.1%
Hurts
LLaVA Vic7B std → LLaVA Vic7B reas
-2.4%
-6.7%
-4.8%
-9.4%
-7.7%
-6.2%
Hurts
LLaMA3 8B std → LLaMA3 8B reas
-2.2%
-5.0%
-1.1%
+33.5%
+5.0%
+6.0%
Helps
Appendix
Table 10: Reasoning vs Standard: Proximity delta per task
Model
N images
Vehicles
Sidewalk
Length
Entrances
Vegetation
Total NAs
NA rate
Qwen 3B std
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Qwen 3B reas
118
11
0
1
2
0
14
0.8%
Qwen 7B std
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Qwen 7B reas
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Qwen 32B std
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Qwen 32B reas
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Appendix
Table 11: Parsing failures (NA counts across all consensus runs)
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Reasoning in vision-language models (VLMs) has recently attracted significant attention due to its broad applicability across diverse downstream tasks. However, it remains unclear whether the superior performance of VLMs stems from genuine vision-grounded reasoning or relies predominantly on the reasoning capabilities of their textual backbones. To systematically measure this, we introduce CrossMath, a novel multimodal reasoning benchmark designed for controlled cross-modal comparisons. Specifically, we construct each problem in text-only, image-only, and image+text formats guaranteeing identical task-relevant information, verified by human annotators. This rigorous alignment effectively isolates modality-specific reasoning differences while eliminating confounding factors such as information mismatch. Extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a consistent phenomenon: a substantial performance gap between textual and visual reasoning. Notably, VLMs excel with text-only inputs, whereas incorporating visual data (image+text) frequently degrades performance compared to the text-only baseline. These findings indicate that current VLMs conduct reasoning primarily in the textual space, with limited genuine reliance on visual evidence. To mitigate this limitation, we curate a CrossMath training set for VLM fine-tuning. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that fine-tuning on this training set significantly boosts reasoning performance across all individual and joint modalities, while yielding robust gains on two general visual reasoning tasks. Source code is available at https://github.com/xuyige/CrossMath.
Yige Xu, Yongjie Wang, Zizhuo Wu +3
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Alibaba-NTU Global e-Sustainability CorpLab (ANGEL) · Tongyi Lab, Alibaba Group, China
We introduce VMMU, a Vietnamese Multitask Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark designed to evaluate how vision-language models (VLMs) interpret and reason over visual and textual information beyond English. VMMU consists of 2.5k multimodal questions across 7 tasks, covering a diverse range of problem contexts, including STEM problem solving, data interpretation, rule-governed visual reasoning, and abstract visual reasoning. All questions require genuine multimodal integration, rather than reliance on text-only cues or OCR-based shortcuts. We evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source VLMs on VMMU. Despite strong Vietnamese OCR performance, proprietary models achieve only 66% mean accuracy. Further analysis shows that the primary source of failure is not OCR, but instead multimodal grounding and reasoning over text and visual evidence. Code and data are available at https://vmmu-bench.github.io/
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have shown strong promise for multimodal reasoning, yet often struggle with tasks requiring concepts beyond what is directly observable in the input image. Existing methods generate intermediate images or latent visual tokens to guide reasoning, but these representations can introduce errors and increasingly interfere with textual reasoning as reasoning progresses. We propose Visual-to-Text Chain-of-Thought Distillation (V2T), a framework that enables LVLMs to internalize visual reasoning without generating intermediate visual representations at inference time. V2T first trains a teacher LVLM using interleaved visual and textual chains of thought, and then uses knowledge distillation to train a student LVLM using the teacher's logits and cross-entropy supervision from ground-truth textual reasoning. When reasoning images can be mapped to the original image, V2T can additionally distill the teacher's attention to corresponding regions, while ground-truth bounding boxes can further guide a subsequent reinforcement learning stage. Experiments across multiple multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that V2T consistently outperforms the teacher and existing baselines, improving average accuracy by 14.3% on a held-out set and 2.7% on the broader visual evaluation suite. Moreover, lightweight SFT and substantially reduced RL make V2T up to 42x faster to train than state-of-the-art baselines.
Wenhan Yang, Nilay Naharas, Ali Payani +1
University of California, Los Angeles · Cisco Research