Papers › African or European Swallow? Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models for...

African or European Swallow? Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models for Fine-Grained Object Classification

20 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.14496archive 2025-07-28

Gregor Geigle, Radu Timofte, Goran Glavaš

Recent Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) demonstrate impressive abilities on numerous image understanding and reasoning tasks. The task of fine-grained object classification (e.g., distinction between \textit{animal species}), however, has been probed insufficiently, despite its downstream importance. We fill this evaluation gap by creating \texttt{FOCI} (\textbf{F}ine-grained \textbf{O}bject \textbf{C}lass\textbf{I}fication), a difficult multiple-choice benchmark for fine-grained object classification, from existing object classification datasets: (1) multiple-choice avoids ambiguous answers associated with casting classification as open-ended QA task; (2) we retain classification difficulty by mining negative labels with a CLIP model. \texttt{FOCI}\xspace complements five popular classification datasets with four domain-specific subsets from ImageNet-21k. We benchmark 12 public LVLMs on \texttt{FOCI} and show that it tests for a \textit{complementary skill} to established image understanding and reasoning benchmarks. Crucially, CLIP models exhibit dramatically better performance than LVLMs. Since the image encoders of LVLMs come from these CLIP models, this points to inadequate alignment for fine-grained object distinction between the encoder and the LLM and warrants (pre)training data with more fine-grained annotation. We release our code at \url{https://github.com/gregor-ge/FOCI-Benchmark}.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

9 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from gregor-ge/FOCI-Benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections