LaViSA: A Language and Vision Structural Ambiguity Benchmark

Lee Sangmyeong, Shun Inadumi, Koichiro Yoshino · Jun 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Structural ambiguity arises when a single sentence admits multiple valid interpretations due to its syntactic structure, posing a fundamental challenge for language understanding. Visual scenes serve as useful cues for resolving such ambiguity, and Vision and Language Models (VLMs) need to be capable of deriving possible semantic interpretations from visual scenes. We introduce Language and Vision Structural Ambiguity (LaViSA), a benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of VLMs to resolve structural ambiguity leveraging visual scenes. LaViSA consists of ambiguous sentences, their disambiguated sentences, and corresponding images of these disambiguated sentences across seven ambiguity categories. Using LaViSA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of diverse VLMs, including both proprietary and open-source models with varying parameter scales and reasoning capabilities. Experimental results show that although recent VLMs can leverage visual scenes to resolve structural ambiguity to a some extent, they still struggle with certain ambiguity types and visually subtle semantic distinctions, indicating remaining limitations in resolving structural ambiguity using visual scenes.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.