aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces VisualNoiseQA, a benchmark designed to evaluate how large language models perform active reasoning when visual sensors provide inconsistent or noisy feedback. By forcing text-only LLMs to iteratively query stochastic vision-language models and interpret uncertainty signals, the study addresses a critical gap in current evaluation metrics that often assume perfect environmental data. The results offer valuable insights into the robustness of AI agents operating in real-world scenarios where evidence reliability cannot be guaranteed.
How Well Do LLMs Reason with Noisy Evidence? An Active Visual Reasoning Benchmark
arXiv:2610.07751v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Real-world reasoning rarely reduces to static question answering: agents must actively gather information from tools and sensors that are often noisy and unreliable. Yet most existing active reasoning benchmarks assume that environmental feedback is trustworthy, or introduce noise without exposing an explicit, calibrated uncertainty signal, leaving open how LLMs should reason when the evidence itself is uncertain. We introduce VisualNoiseQA, a novel benchmark for active reasoning under noisy visual feedback. A text-only LLM must solve VQA problems by iteratively querying a fixed, off-the-shelf VLM treated as a stochastic visual sensor. For each query, we draw multiple samples and expose an empirical uncertainty signal via self-consistency, enabling the reasoner to probe from different angles and decide what to ask next and when to stop. Our construction is automatic and scalable: starting from diverse VQA sources and two noisy VLMs, we retain only questions where the sensor is inconsistent yet human-solvable. We evaluate multiple LLM reasoners on 1,000 instances spanning perception, chart understanding, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. VisualNoiseQA thus provides a controlled playground to study how different LLMs exploit uncertainty signals for robust reasoning.
Title:How Well Do LLMs Reason with Noisy Evidence? An Active Visual Reasoning Benchmark
Abstract:Real-world reasoning rarely reduces to static question answering: agents must actively gather information from tools and sensors that are often noisy and unreliable. Yet most existing active reasoning benchmarks assume that environmental feedback is trustworthy, or introduce noise without exposing an explicit, calibrated uncertainty signal, leaving open how LLMs should reason when the evidence itself is uncertain. We introduce VisualNoiseQA, a novel benchmark for active reasoning under noisy visual feedback. A text-only LLM must solve VQA problems by iteratively querying a fixed, off-the-shelf VLM treated as a stochastic visual sensor. For each query, we draw multiple samples and expose an empirical uncertainty signal via self-consistency, enabling the reasoner to probe from different angles and decide what to ask next and when to stop. Our construction is automatic and scalable: starting from diverse VQA sources and two noisy VLMs, we retain only questions where the sensor is inconsistent yet human-solvable. We evaluate multiple LLM reasoners on 1,000 instances spanning perception, chart understanding, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. VisualNoiseQA thus provides a controlled playground to study how different LLMs exploit uncertainty signals for robust reasoning.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.07751 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.07751v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07751 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 288 words
Related coverage
Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026
[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
The user in the LLM might be a moral patient too (a strange implication of the PSM and simulators)
LessWrong · Oct 15, 2026