Seeing Parts, Reasoning about Worlds: Visual Inference under Partial Observation

Visual world knowledge is a core capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), underpinning knowledge-intensive visual question answering and fine-grained visual reasoning. However, existing benchmarks remain limited in two key respects. First, their category coverage is narrow: most benchmarks span only a small number of categories across a few domains, falling far short of the open-ended scale of real-world visual entities. Second, their task construction is often insufficiently rigorous: models can answer correctly using coarse-grained cues, vague associations, or elimination strategies without truly mastering precise concepts, making it difficult to accurately assess their knowledge of fine-grained entities. We introduce VisualWorldBench, a taxonomy-grounded multi-task benchmark built on a hierarchical taxonomy of 21,291 leaf-node classes across 8 visual domains, with 32,541 evaluation instances whose ground-truth labels cover 15,479 categories across four complementary tasks: closed-set recognition, contrastive selection, precise localization, and open-world naming, covering different directions of knowledge retrieval and varying degrees of answer openness to comprehensively evaluate visual world knowledge. Most questions are constructed from taxonomically proximate categories, forcing precise discrimination among fine-grained entities. Experiments reveal that the strongest closed-source model achieves only 80.4% average accuracy, exposing capability gaps hidden under conventional benchmarks. We further construct VisualWorldBench-50K, a training resource covering 50K+ categories. Fine-tuning on VisualWorldBench-50K yields over 21 percentage points improvement on VisualWorldBench, with consistent transfer to public fine-grained recognition and visual knowledge benchmarks.

When a multimodal large language model answers a visual reasoning question correctly, is the prediction actually supported by the task-critical visual evidence? Correct answers can coexist with flawed reasoning, making accuracy alone an incomplete test of grounding. We introduce VisualFLIP, a paired benchmark with 1,374 images arranged as same-question perturbation pairs across cardinality, attribute, spatial, and logic tasks. Each pair keeps the question fixed but minimally changes the evidence so the gold answer deterministically flips. We evaluate 24 MLLMs with pair accuracy, which requires solving both sides of a pair, and Collapse Rate (CR), which measures how often a model that solves at least one side repeats the same non-empty answer for both images. Together, these metrics show that paired correctness and evidence dependence are related but distinct: capable models can still fail to update after task-critical visual changes, and collapse becomes more severe for some models when the edited image follows an earlier answer in a sequential setting. Further details are available on our project page: https://didizhu-judy.github.io/VisualFLIP/

Reliable visual reasoning requires composing multiple visual observations and returning consistent answers to logically equivalent questions. We introduce Hob-VL, a benchmark for visually grounded Boolean reasoning. Hob-VL comprises two tasks: (1) evaluating whether a Boolean rule holds in an image, and (2) identifying the (unique) object satisfying a Boolean description. Hob-VL contains 6,000 human-verified balanced Yes/No questions, each defined by a Boolean combination of ten visual statements, across 1,000 generated scenes and 46 diverse labeled photographs, along with 1,000 object-identification questions over the same photographs. Our question families are deliberately constructed to challenge reasoning through misleading local cues and nested logical operations, and include symbolic and structured natural-language presentations. Across eight model configurations with thinking disabled or minimized, Boolean accuracy ranges from 48.52% to 50.57%, while the identification accuracy reaches at most 43.0%. A thinking-enabled GLM configuration achieves uneven gains while retaining substantial errors and inconsistencies. Hob-VL exposes these failures through executable reference answers and matched evaluations.