We introduce CARTBENCH, a museum-grounded benchmark for evaluating vision-language models (VLMs) on Chinese artworks beyond short-form recognition and QA. CARTBENCH comprises four subtasks: CURATORQA for evidence-grounded recognition and reasoning, CATALOGCAPTION for structured four-section expert-style appreciation, REINTERPRET for defensible reinterpretation with expert ratings, and CONNOISSEURPAIRS for diagnostic authenticity discrimination under visually similar confounds. CARTBENCH is built by aligning image-bearing Palace Museum objects from Wikidata with authoritative catalog pages, spanning five art categories across multiple dynasties. Across nine representative VLMs, we find that high overall CURATORQA accuracy can mask sharp drops on hard evidence linking and style-to-period inference; long-form appreciation remains far from expert references; and authenticity-oriented diagnostic discrimination stays near chance, underscoring the difficulty of connoisseur-level reasoning for current models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of CArtBench construction and task instantiation. Top: Phase 1 retrieves image-bearing Palace Museum objects from Wikidata, Phase 2 aligns them to official catalog pages to collect curatorial descriptions, and Phase 3 performs expert filtering and category assignment to yield museum-grounded artwork–appreciation pairs. Bottom: the curated pairs are instantiated into four tasks: CuratorQA (evidence grounding), CatalogCaption (structured appreciation), ReInterpret (expert-rated reinterpretation), and ConnoisseurPairs (confound-aware authenticity diagnostics).
Figure 2: Type and era distributions of CuratorQA entries: (left) five art categories; (right) top-8 merged eras.
Model
Acc.
QA type Acc.
Category Acc.
QA1
QA2
QA3
QA4
QA5
QA6
Callig.
Station.
Paint.
Ceram.
Sculpt.
Qwen family
Qwen3-VL-235B
0.84
0.88
0.94
0.88
0.89
0.56
0.81
0.85
0.78
0.87
0.79
0.84
Qwen3-VL-30B
0.80
0.85
0.91
0.85
0.88
0.42
0.78
0.83
0.74
0.83
0.76
0.80
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
0.81
0.85
0.93
0.85
0.87
0.53
0.76
0.83
0.74
0.85
0.75
0.80
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.80
0.84
0.91
0.83
0.87
0.53
0.74
0.82
0.76
0.83
0.73
0.78
Table 1: CuratorQA accuracy breakdown (overall, by question type, and by art category). We report exact-match accuracy on 14,421 questions. Category abbreviations: Callig.=calligraphy, Station.=stationery, Paint.=painting, Ceram.=ceramics, Sculpt.=sculpture.
Subset
mean Δ (CI 95 )
pperm
QA1
0.0426 [0.0279, 0.0574]
<0.05
QA2
0.0354 [0.0215, 0.0485]
<0.05
QA3
0.0435 [0.0301, 0.0568]
<0.05
QA4
0.0345 [0.0224, 0.0462]
<0.05
QA5
0.1022 [0.0735, 0.1302]
<0.05
QA6
0.0295 [0.0169, 0.0423]
<0.05
Table 2: Subset-wise robustness of the performance gap between a Chinese–English bilingual proxy (Qwen3-235B) and a general-purpose API proxy (GPT-5-mini) on CuratorQA Ẇe report Δ=Acc(Qwen3-235B)−Acc(GPT-5-mini) with 95% confidence intervals (CI 95 ) obtained by bootstrap resampling. Statistical significance is assessed using a sign-flip permutation test, with clustering at the artwork level to account for multiple questions per artwork.
Weights scenario
Spearman
Kendall
Top-1
Uniform weights
0.991
0.964
1.000
Dirichlet ( α=5 )
0.991
0.964
1.000
Dirichlet ( α=1 )
0.964
0.891
1.000
Local Gaussian ( σ=0.05 )
0.991
0.964
1.000
Table 3: KPI weight sensitivity for CatalogCaption . Spearman/Kendall are rank correlations with the default-weight ordering. For stochastic schemes (Dirichlet and Local Gaussian), we report the median over samples.
Model
KPI ↑
BERTScore F1 ↑
CIDEr-like ↑
ROUGE-L ↑
BLEU-4 ↑
EmbSim ↑
Header rate ↑
Human baseline
Human (mean of 3)
0.698
0.746
0.673
0.699
0.546
0.982
0.988
Qwen family
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
0.261
0.329
0.205
0.237
0.146
0.876
1.000
Qwen3-VL-235B
0.258
0.319
0.223
0.223
0.138
0.893
1.000
Qwen3-VL-30B
0.256
0.322
0.224
0.222
0.112
0.891
1.000
Table 4: CatalogCaption evaluation on 86 artworks. Overlap-based metrics (ROUGE-L / BLEU-4 / CIDEr-like) use character-level tokenization. BERTScore F1 uses bert-base-chinese with rescale_with_baseline=True . EmbSim is cosine similarity under text2vec-base-chinese . Header rate measures whether all four required section headers appear in the output. References are expert-rewritten into the four-section schema.
Model
Gate pass ↑
Primary avg (D1–D3) ↑
All avg (D1–D5) ↑
gemini-2.5-flash
0.707 [0.600, 0.813]
3.673 [3.476, 3.887]
3.723 [3.528, 3.933]
GLM-4.6V
0.853 [0.760, 0.933]
3.649 [3.522, 3.784]
3.679 [3.575, 3.796]
gpt-5-mini
0.867 [0.787, 0.947]
3.567 [3.480, 3.656]
3.617 [3.529, 3.708]
qwen3-vl-235B
0.880 [0.787, 0.960]
3.747 [3.622, 3.878]
3.728 [3.621, 3.836]
Table 5: ReInterpret human creativity evaluation on 25 artworks (3 raters; 75 ratings per model). Stage 1 is a plausibility gate; Gate pass is the fraction of outputs that enter Stage 2. Stage 2 uses 1–5 Likert ratings and is computed only on passed outputs. We report macro-averages over artworks with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. Primary avg averages the three primary dimensions (D1–D3), and All avg averages all five dimensions (D1–D5).
Model
Acc.
Model
Acc.
GLM family
GLM-4.5V
0.600
GLM-4.6V
0.600
Qwen family
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
0.600
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.500
Qwen3-VL-235B
0.500
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
0.400
Qwen3-VL-30B
0.400
Table 6: Diagnostic pairwise authenticity discrimination on 10 authentic–imitation pairs in ConnoisseurPairs . A prediction is correct if the model selects the authentic work in each A/B pair. Given the small scale, results should be interpreted as indicative of a capability gap rather than a definitive model ranking.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Bilingual model
General model
Acc.bi
Acc.gen
Δ
Significance
Qwen3-235B
GPT-5-mini
0.8400
0.7949
+0.0451
McNemar (paired, N=14421 ): p=4.22×10−47 . Clustered by artwork ID ( Nartwork=1589 ): Δ=0.0447 , CI 95=[0.0384,0.0512] , p=0.0002 .
Appendix
Table 7: Chinese–English bilingual vs. general-purpose API proxy comparison on CuratorQA . Qwen3-235B is a Chinese–English bilingual VLM with strong Chinese multimodal performance; GPT-5-mini is a general-purpose multilingual API.
Scenario
#samples
Spearman (p05/p50/p95)
Kendall (p05/p50/p95)
Top-1 same
Top-3 Jaccard (p05/p50/p95)
Default (sanity)
1
1.000/1.000/1.000
1.000/1.000/1.000
1.000
1.000/1.000/1.000
Uniform weights
1
0.991/0.991/0.991
0.964/0.964/0.964
1.000
1.000/1.000/1.000
Dirichlet α=5
8000
0.945/0.991/0.991
0.855/0.964/0.964
1.000
1.000/1.000/1.000
Dirichlet α=1
8000
0.882/0.964/1.000
0.709/0.891/1.000
1.000
0.500/1.000/1.000
Dirichlet α=0.5
8000
0.873/0.964/1.000
0.673/0.891/1.000
1.000
0.500/1.000/1.000
wbert∈[0.35,0.60]
5000
0.991/1.000/1.000
0.964/1.000/1.000
1.000
1.000/1.000/1.000
Appendix
Table 8: KPI weight sensitivity analysis for CatalogCaption . Rank correlations are computed against the default-weight ordering; we report 5th/50th/95th percentiles for stochastic scenarios. Top-1 same and Top-3 Jaccard are computed over models (excluding human baselines).
Model
Mean rank
Std. rank
P(top-3)
human_mean
1.000
0.000
1.000
preds_qwen25_72B
2.397
0.734
0.860
preds_qwen3_235B
2.863
0.495
0.936
preds_qwen3_30B
4.035
0.806
0.203
preds_qwen25_7B
5.038
0.920
0.000
preds_glm45
6.189
0.785
0.000
Appendix
Table 9: Model rank stability under Dirichlet weight perturbations with α=1 (8,000 samples). We report the mean and standard deviation of each model’s rank, and the probability of appearing in the top-3.
Item
D1
D2
D3
E1
Agreement
.639
.622
.637
.841 †
Qwen2.5-72B
3.640
3.702
3.663
0.081
Qwen3-235B
3.647
3.609
3.616
0.050
Gemini-flash
3.229
3.275
3.337
0.093
Appendix
Table 10: Expert rubric evaluation for CatalogCaption . Agreement: ICC(2,3) for D1–D3; † Gwet’s AC1 for E1. E1 = fraction of outputs flagged for major factual errors.
Model
Gate κ
ICC Primary
ICC All
GLM-4.6V
0.487
0.498
0.649
gemini-2.5-flash
0.415
0.476
0.709
gpt-5-mini
0.711
0.785
0.869
qwen3-vl-235B
0.577
0.877
0.888
Appendix
Table 11: Inter-annotator agreement for ReInterpret . Gate κ : Fleiss’ κ for Stage 1 pass/fail. ICC Primary/All: ICC(2,3) for the 3-rater mean on D1–D3 and D1–D5 respectively.
Model
Gate pass
D1 Novelty
D2 Coherence
D3 Evidence
D4 Elaboration
D5 Insight
gemini-2.5-flash
0.707 [0.600, 0.813]
3.287 [2.940, 3.653]
3.960 [3.740, 4.193]
3.773 [3.587, 3.960]
3.980 [3.760, 4.213]
3.613 [3.353, 3.907]
GLM-4.6V
0.853 [0.760, 0.933]
3.407 [3.213, 3.620]
3.793 [3.653, 3.947]
3.747 [3.560, 3.947]
3.800 [3.627, 3.980]
3.647 [3.467, 3.853]
gpt-5-mini
0.867 [0.787, 0.947]
3.280 [3.120, 3.447]
3.767 [3.647, 3.880]
3.653 [3.507, 3.787]
3.873 [3.733, 4.027]
3.513 [3.333, 3.700]
qwen3-vl-235B
0.880 [0.787, 0.960]
3.533 [3.340, 3.740]
3.867 [3.687, 4.053]
3.840 [3.707, 3.973]
3.847 [3.693, 4.013]
3.553 [3.413, 3.700]
Appendix
Table 12: Dimension-wise macro-averages for ReInterpret with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals over artworks. Gate pass is the Stage 1 plausibility pass rate. D1–D5 are Stage 2 Likert ratings computed only for gate-passed outputs, macro-averaged over artworks.
Model
Failures
Other
Era/Dynasty error
Misread / missed content
Wrong type/region attribution
Empty/NA
gemini-2.5-flash
22 (29.3%)
11 (14.7%)
6 (8.0%)
2 (2.7%)
2 (2.7%)
1 (1.3%)
GLM-4.6V
11 (14.7%)
8 (10.7%)
2 (2.7%)
1 (1.3%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
gpt-5-mini
10 (13.3%)
5 (6.7%)
1 (1.3%)
3 (4.0%)
1 (1.3%)
0 (0.0%)
qwen3-vl-235B
9 (12.0%)
7 (9.3%)
1 (1.3%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.3%)
0 (0.0%)
Appendix
Table 13: Stage 1 gate-failure type distributions for ReInterpret . Counts are over rater × artwork instances (75 per model), with percentages relative to 75. Failure types are recorded only when a rater marks the output as failing the plausibility gate.
Figure 3: Survey Questionnaire for ReInterpret -Part1.
Figure 4: Survey Questionnaire for ReInterpret -Part2.
Figure 5: Survey Questionnaire for ConnoisseurPairs -Part1.
Figure 6: Survey Questionnaire for ConnoisseurPairs -Part2.
Figure 7: Chinese dynasties and historical periods considered in this work, listing the Chinese names with English equivalents and their approximate date ranges (BCE/CE).
Group
Tag
Description
Numbers
Percentage
Overview
Entries
–
Unique artwork entries
1,589
–
Questions
–
Total number of questions
14,421
–
Avg. Q / entry
–
Average questions per entry
9.07
–
Difficulty
Principle
P1
Visual-only (answerable from the image)
10,920
75.72
Appendix
Table 14: Summary statistics of CuratorQA , including overview counts, difficulty principles, and question-type distribution.
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
VLMs have become increasingly proficient at a range of computer vision tasks, such as visual question answering and object detection. This includes increasingly strong capabilities in the domain of art, from analyzing artwork to generation of art. In an interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists and art historians, we characterize the mechanisms underlying VLMs' ability to predict artistic style and assess the extent to which they align with the criteria art historians use to reason about artistic style. We employ a latent-space decomposition approach to identify concepts that drive art style prediction and conduct quantitative evaluations, causal analysis and assessment by art historians. Our findings indicate that 73% of the extracted concepts are judged by art historians to exhibit a coherent and semantically meaningful visual feature and 90% of concepts used to predict style of a given artwork were judged relevant. In cases where an irrelevant concept was used to successfully predict style, art historians identified possible reasons for its success; for example, the model might "understand" a concept in more formal terms, such as dark/light contrasts.
While Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate impressive general visual capabilities, they remain artistically blind and unable to offer professional evaluation of artworks within specific artistic domains like human experts. To bridge this gap, we transform VLMs into experts capable of professional-grade painting evaluation in the Chinese Artistic Domain, which is more abstract and demands extensive artistic training for evaluation. We introduce HanMo-Bench, a new dataset that features authentic auction-grade masterpieces and AI-generated works, grounded in real-world market valuations. To realize the rigorous judgment, we propose the HanMoVLM and construct a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) validated by experts. This CoT guides the model to perform expert-level reasoning: from content identification and Region of Interest (RoI) localization to professional evaluation, guided by both theme-specific evaluation and typical three-tier evaluation in Chinese paintings. Furthermore, we design a reward function to refine the reasoning process of the HanMoVLM to improve the accuracy. We demonstrate that HanMoVLM can serve as a critical backbone for Test-time Scaling in image generation. By acting as a high-quality verifier, HanMoVLM enables generative models to select the most artistically superior outputs from multiple candidates. Experimental results and human studies confirm that the proposed HanMoVLM effectively bridges the gap, achieving a high consistency with professional experts and significantly improving the quality of Chinese Painting generation.
Hongji Yang, Yucheng Zhou, Wencheng Han +3
SKL-IOTSC, CIS, University of Macau · CSE, Shandong University · Online-Video BU, Tencent
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to detect whether AI-generated images contain visible artifacts, yet their ability to analyze such artifacts remains poorly understood. A correct image-level decision can still hide important failures: a model may correctly flag an artifact while relying on the wrong visual cue, selecting the wrong region, or describing a defect that the image does not support. To evaluate these behaviors directly, we introduce SalArt-VQA, a diagnostic benchmark for fine-grained SALient ARTifact understanding in AI-generated images. SalArt-VQA contains 950 images and 3,681 human-authored multiple-choice questions spanning artifact images, matched real reference images, and paired generated reference images. Four aligned question types evaluate presence detection, semantic localization, spatial grounding, and evidence-grounded defect identification, while the reference splits test calibration and abstention when the annotated defect is absent. Across 20 VLMs, SalArt-VQA reveals failures that image-level detection accuracy hides: the strongest model reaches 99.37% detection recall on artifact images but answers all four artifact-side questions correctly on only 53.26% of images. Comparing artifact images with artifact-free references reveals a sensitivity-calibration tradeoff: sensitive models often make unsupported artifact claims, while conservative models avoid false alarms largely by missing real artifacts. These results show that high artifact detection accuracy alone does not imply grounded artifact understanding. SalArt-VQA exposes these hidden failure modes and provides a fine-grained evaluation of whether VLM artifact claims are supported by local visual evidence.
Ruotian Zhang, Xiaoxiao Sun, Junzhe Huang +2
Zhejiang University · The University of Queensland