aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces NoteVQA, a new benchmark derived from real-world questions on Xiaohongshu to evaluate how well Vision-Language Models handle diverse, everyday visual scenarios. The study reveals significant gaps between current frontier models and human performance in both short-answer accuracy and the quality of visually grounded explanations. These findings highlight the persistent challenges for VLMs in understanding the long tail of user intents beyond predefined capabilities.
NoteVQA: Benchmarking VLMs on Real-Life Questions from Human Communities
arXiv:2609.15695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly power consumer-facing AI search, yet evaluating them on the diversity of everyday visual questions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often target predefined capabilities, such as multi-hop retrieval or long-form synthesis, whereas users ask photo-grounded questions spanning a long tail of everyday scenarios. Despite advances in VLMs, users on Xiaohongshu, a mainstream Chinese image-sharing platform, continue to turn to other people for help with everyday visual questions. Motivated by this behaviour, we curate NoteVQA from these questions, yielding 252 items across 12 topical categories and 7 user intents. Each item includes a concise reference distilled from expert community responses and a human-audited interleaved reference answer that combines textual explanations with supporting visual evidence. We evaluate both short-answer correctness and interleaved-answer quality. To support the latter, we introduce AgenticInterleave, a single-agent ReAct framework for retrieval-supported answer generation, together with IVR-12, a 12-dimensional rubric for assessing the content, presentation, and image quality of interleaved references and model outputs. Across 10 frontier VLMs, the highest short-answer accuracy is 52.8\%, while adding agentic search to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B improves accuracy by only 2.0\%. For interleaved answers, the same model running AgenticInterleave scores 3.52 under IVR-12, compared with 4.65 for the human-audited references, with the largest gap in content quality. These results highlight the challenges that everyday visual questions pose for current VLMs in both answer accuracy and the quality of visually grounded explanations.
Abstract:Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly power consumer-facing AI search, yet evaluating them on the diversity of everyday visual questions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often target predefined capabilities, such as multi-hop retrieval or long-form synthesis, whereas users ask photo-grounded questions spanning a long tail of everyday scenarios. Despite advances in VLMs, users on Xiaohongshu, a mainstream Chinese image-sharing platform, continue to turn to other people for help with everyday visual questions. Motivated by this behaviour, we curate NoteVQA from these questions, yielding 252 items across 12 topical categories and 7 user intents. Each item includes a concise reference distilled from expert community responses and a human-audited interleaved reference answer that combines textual explanations with supporting visual evidence. We evaluate both short-answer correctness and interleaved-answer quality. To support the latter, we introduce AgenticInterleave, a single-agent ReAct framework for retrieval-supported answer generation, together with IVR-12, a 12-dimensional rubric for assessing the content, presentation, and image quality of interleaved references and model outputs. Across 10 frontier VLMs, the highest short-answer accuracy is 52.8\%, while adding agentic search to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B improves accuracy by only 2.0\%. For interleaved answers, the same model running AgenticInterleave scores 3.52 under IVR-12, compared with 4.65 for the human-audited references, with the largest gap in content quality. These results highlight the challenges that everyday visual questions pose for current VLMs in both answer accuracy and the quality of visually grounded explanations.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.15695 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.15695v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15695 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 · 323 words
Related coverage

34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · Aug 5, 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · Jul 26, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026