Kaito Watanabe, Taisei Yamamoto, Tomoki Doi +1cs.CL
One of the expected abilities of vision-language models (VLMs) is spatial reasoning ability based on a given text and image. To evaluate the spatial reasoning abilities of VLMs, we focus on the use of spatial deictic expressions, which are defined as spatial expressions whose referent is determined by their situational context, such as ``this'' and ``that''. To handle spatial deictic expressions, VLMs must jointly reason over language and visual space, grounding context-dependent references in the image's spatial structure. In addition, selecting appropriate spatial deictic expressions across languages requires VLMs to understand the language-specific spatial distinctions encoded by these expressions. In this paper, we develop a benchmark to evaluate the multilingual ability of VLMs to use spatial deictic expressions in four languages. Our experiments using this benchmark reveal that the tested models use demonstratives in a manner different from that of humans, particularly in selecting the appropriate demonstratives based on the distance to the object.
Current Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are celebrated for their multilingual capabilities, yet they operate under a flawed assumption: that one language corresponds to a single writing system. This overlooks billions of users of multi-script languages like Punjabi, Serbian, Hindi-Urdu, Kurdish, among many others, for whom a model's capability may be fractured by orthographic bias. We introduce PuMVR (Punjabi Multimodal Visual Reasoning), the first benchmark designed to quantify script-dependent bias through 375 culturally grounded image-reasoning tasks across Punjabi's three active scripts (Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, Roman). Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art VLMs, we expose a substantial Script Gap: models frequently solve visual puzzles in one script while failing identical tasks in another, with accuracy deltas reaching 16% and Script Consistency Rates (SCR) as low as 24.8%. Crucially, visual input boosts absolute performance but does not close this gap, the relative bias persists. Our analysis suggests reasoning patterns show limited cross-script transferability, and Chain-of-Thought pathways diverge based on script alone. We propose SCR as a core metric for script-agnostic evaluation, challenging current multilingual assessment paradigms and providing a framework for equitable AI.
Current multilingual evaluations for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) assume a one-to-one mapping between language and orthography, overlooking billions of users of multi-script languages. We introduce PuMVR (Punjabi Multimodal Visual Reasoning), a benchmark of 1,000 strictly parallel image-text instances across Punjabi's three active scripts: Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, and Roman. Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art VLMs, we expose a substantial and systematic Script Gap. Models frequently solve visual tasks in one script while failing identical tasks in another, with accuracy deltas reaching 16%. Crucially, visual input boosts absolute performance uniformly yet does not close the orthographic gap. Furthermore, cross-script in-context transfer is highly brittle, exposing script-locked knowledge representation. Supported by McNemar tests across all script pairs, our findings demonstrate that current "multilingual" VLMs are not truly multi-script. We propose the Script Consistency Rate (SCR), which falls as low as 24.8% on our benchmark, as a mandatory metric for script-agnostic evaluation to ensure equitable AI access. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/prabhjotschugh/Not-Truly-Multilingual-PuMVR.
Vision-language models must associate visual entities with textual attributes. Whether these associations or concept bindings remain stable when the language of the input changes is unexplored. We introduce M$^2$BIND, a benchmark varying the language of the context and query across multiple languages. We evaluate binding both extrinsically through task performance metrics and intrinsically through causal interventions. We find that binding is not language-invariant: cross-family and cross-script settings trigger significant binding collapse, with the model's internal binding computation shifting to later layers and losing causal strength. Closely related languages preserve associations comparatively better. In a broader sense, our findings indicate how VLMs deployed globally in multilingual settings cannot be assumed to maintain the same association quality observed in monolingual evaluation.
Pieter Christy Yan Yudhistira, Dzaki Rafif Malik, Novanto Yudistiracs.CL cs.CV
Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are typically evaluated on English radiology visual question answering benchmarks, leaving their robustness under non-English clinical language largely unexplored. We introduce IndoRad-VQA, an Indonesian adaptation of VQA-RAD, to assess whether medical VLMs retain radiology reasoning ability when questions are asked in Bahasa Indonesia. Radiology question-answer pairs are translated into Indonesian with self-evaluation-based quality control to preserve clinical meaning, terminology consistency, and answer equivalence. We evaluate general-purpose, Southeast Asian multilingual, and medical-specific VLMs under English and Indonesian prompting settings. Beyond accuracy, we quantify the language robustness gap between English and Indonesian inputs. We also conduct an error analysis to identify failure modes of question answering, such as yes/no flips, laterality errors, and output-language mismatches. Our findings show that strong performance on English medical VQA benchmarks does not necessarily translate to robust behavior in Indonesian clinical contexts. We observe a performance gap of 8 to 25 percent between the English and Indonesian settings, depending on the evaluation metric. These results highlight the need for more inclusive multilingual evaluation of medical multimodal foundation models. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Lab-IS/IndoRad-VQA.