BareBones: Benchmarking Zero-Shot Geometric Comprehension in VLMs
Organizations: (Independent Researcher) · University of Calgary
Abstract
While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate remarkable zero-shot recognition capabilities across a diverse spectrum of multimodal tasks, it yet remains an open question whether these architectures genuinely comprehend geometric structure or merely exploit RGB textures and contextual priors as statistical shortcuts. Existing evaluations fail to isolate this mechanism, conflating semantic reasoning with texture mapping and relying on imprecise annotations that inadvertently leak environmental cues. To address this gap, we introduce , a zero-shot benchmark designed to stress-test pure geometric shape comprehension. We curate pixel-level silhouettes of geometrically distinct classes across six datasets: five established segmentation sources (ImageNet-S, DIS5K, ThinObject5K, PASCAL VOC, CUB-200) and our novel flagship collection, WTP-Bench, establishing a noise-free geometric taxonomy. WTP-Bench is an extreme, fine-grained visual puzzle that forces models to identify inter-class geometric concepts from boundary contours alone. Our evaluation of 26 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-weight VLMs (eg. GPT-4.1, Gemini, Claude Sonnet 4.5, LLaVA) reveals a consistent, severe performance collapse under RGB deprivation, a phenomenon we term the . By documenting universal structural blindspots, BareBones establishes a rigorous yardstick for genuine geometric grounding. Project Page: https://eternal-f1ame.github.io/WTP-Bench/
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Targets | Geometric Focus / Visual Challenge | HQ (Texture) | Sil (Shape) | Avg Drop |
| Mean Std (%) | Mean Std (%) | (%) | |||
| ImageNet-S [ 8 ] | 100 | Base geometries with distinct outlines. | 35.3 | ||
| DIS5K [ 25 ] | 125 | Complex boundaries, fine appendages. | 13.5 | ||
| ThinObject5K [ 17 ] | 193 | Continuous, narrow geometries. | 0.9 | ||
| PASCAL VOC [ 7 ] | 20 | Articulated objects, non-canonical views. | 19.3 | ||
| CUB-200 [ 29 ] | 200 | Fine-grained species (anatomy geometry). | 9.8 |
| WTP-Bench Accuracy | |||
| Model | Size | HQ (%) | Sil (%) |
| Proprietary Models | |||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 [ 3 ] | – | 27.59 | 27.41 |
| GPT-4o mini [ 22 ] | – | 49.31 | 8.53 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash [ 11 ] | – | 77.24 | 30.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 [ 3 ] | – | 65.09 | 53.10 |
| Proprietary Models | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ID | Size | Model | Developer |
| PRM-1 | – | Claude Haiku 4.5 [ 3 ] | Anthropic |
| PRM-2 | – | GPT-4o mini [ 22 ] | OpenAI |
| PRM-3 | – | Gemini 2.5 Flash [ 11 ] | |
| PRM-4 | – | Claude Sonnet 4.5 [ 3 ] | Anthropic |
| PRM-5 | – | Grok 4 Fast [ 30 ] | xAI |
| Class | HQ Acc (%) |
|---|---|
| WTP-Bench | |
| Eternatus (Eternamax) | 54.2 |
| Dugtrio (Alolan) | 62.1 |
| Slowbro (Galarian) | 71.6 |
| ImageNet-S | |
| Green Mamba | 48.3 |
| Generation 1 | Generation 8 | |||
| Model | HQ (%) | Sil (%) | HQ (%) | Sil (%) |
| Proprietary Models | ||||
| GPT-4.1 | 85.4 | 58.2 | 71.2 | 38.5 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 81.3 | 29.1 | 73.4 | 15.2 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 74.2 | 33.6 | 55.1 | 18.4 |
| Open-Weight Models | ||||
| Confused Pair | HQ Acc (%) | Sil Confusions |
| ImageNet-S ( n=100 ) | ||
| Admiral Cabbage Butterfly | 71.0 | 380+ |
| Walker Hound Beagle | 84.2 | 310+ |
| WTP-Bench ( n=1,160 ) | ||
| Plusle Minun | 82.5 | 540+ |
| Nidoran (Male) Nidoran (Female) | 79.8 | 480+ |
| High-Quality (Texture) | Silhouette (Pure Shape) | |||||
| Model ID | Master | Ultra | Great | Master | Ultra | Great |
| Proprietary Models (PRM) | ||||||
| PRM-1 | 27.59 | 35.78 | 42.07 | 27.41 | 35.86 | 41.90 |
| PRM-2 | 49.31 | 61.98 | 68.71 | 8.53 | 12.50 | 15.52 |
| PRM-3 | 77.24 | 83.02 | 86.21 | 30.00 | 35.95 | 42.07 |
| PRM-4 | 65.09 | 79.22 | 81.90 | 53.10 | 62.84 | 68.45 |
| Open-Weight Silhouette Errors | |||
| Generation | Wrong Guesses | % of Errors | Dataset % |
| 1 | 13,959 | 79.2% | 19.6% |
| 2 | 1,156 | 6.6% | 9.6% |
| 3 | 613 | 3.5% | 14.2% |
| 4 | 868 | 4.9% | 11.2% |
| 5 | 371 | 2.1% | 15.9% |
VLM Evaluation
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
See all 989 papers