All papersMultimodal AIRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

How Finely Can Vision-Language Models See Biology? Bio-VQA: A Benchmark for Taxonomic, Morphological, Spatial and Individual Reasoning

/ Paper arXiv 2611.05559

Key numbers

41.7%the best model counts animals exactly on 41.7% of images with 2 to 10 individuals
1.2×from 0.731 against BioCLIP-2's 0.874 at class (1.2x)
2×to 0.269 against 0.544 at scientific name (2x)

From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.

Abstract

From the paperThe authors' own words.

In biodiversity monitoring, a single image raises several questions: which taxon, how many, which trait, and whether the individual has been seen before. Vision-language models (VLMs) could answer all of these from the image, but their ability is largely untested in biology, as existing benchmarks focus mostly on species identification within a few taxonomic groups. We present Bio-VQA, the largest biological visual question answering (VQA) benchmark and the only one to span four aspects of biological visual understanding: hierarchical taxonomic reasoning, fine-grained attribute grounding, quantitative spatial reasoning, and individual re-identification. Bio-VQA contains 1.86M questions over 217K images from 11 public datasets, and extends right-or-wrong scoring to graded scoring, so a near-miss counts for more than a distant one. Evaluating 18 open-weight models from 3.75B to 38.4B parameters, we find that general visual capabilities do not transfer to biological organisms: the best model counts animals exactly on 41.7% of images with 2 to 10 individuals, less than half its accuracy on everyday objects at the same counts. Taxonomic accuracy falls to one sixth, from 0.72 at phylum to 0.12 at scientific name, and scaling helps mostly at coarse ranks. The gap to a domain specialist widens accordingly, from 0.731 against BioCLIP-2's 0.874 at class (1.2x) to 0.269 against 0.544 at scientific name (2x). On trait size measurement, 15 of the 18 models do no better than an image-blind baseline that predicts one fixed number for every specimen, and on re-identification, 17 of the 18 models fall below chance under adversarial conditions. These failures persist across a tenfold range of model size. We hope Bio-VQA becomes a standard test of how well VLM capabilities transfer to the biological domain.

From the full paper

From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.

Reading the paper on arXiv…

Where it fits

The most cited papers it builds on, and the papers that build on it.

/ Builds on 0 most cited

Semantic Scholar has no reference list for it yet.

/ Built on by 1 paper cite it

  1. 20260 citedCLADE: Category-Level Answering from Deficient Evidence in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

From Semantic Scholar, updated weekly.

Try it

Code, models and demos that use this paper.

Datasets:
imageomics/Bio-VQA ↗1 dataset on Hugging Face

Ask this paper

/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section

    / Your notes

    Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.

      Read the PDF