Logan Bolton

Pooyan Rahmanzadehgervi, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri et al.

While large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs), e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro, score high on many vision-understanding benchmarks, they are still struggling with low-level vision tasks that are easy to humans. Specifically, on BlindTest, our suite of 7 very simple tasks, including identifying (a) whether two circles overlap; (b) how many times two lines intersect; (c) which letter is being circled in a word; and (d) the number of circles in an Olympic-like logo, four state-of-the-art VLMs are only 58.07% accurate on average. Claude 3.5 Sonnet performs the best at 77.84% accuracy, far from the human expected accuracy of 100%. Across different image resolutions and line widths, VLMs including slow-thinking models consistently struggle with those tasks that require precise spatial information when geometric primitives overlap or are close. Yet, VLMs perform at near-100% accuracy when much more space is added to separate shapes and letters. Linear probing experiments show that vision encoders contain sufficient visual information to solve BlindTest and that language models fail to decode this information into correct answers. Code and data are at: https://vlmsareblind.github.io

Tin Nguyen, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri et al.

An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the query. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Interestingly, in few-shot settings, HoT outperforms vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT) on a wide range of 17 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to make users believe that an answer is correct.

Brandon Collins, Logan Bolton, Hung Huy Nguyen et al.

When answering questions about images, humans naturally point, label, and draw to explain their reasoning. In contrast, modern vision-language models (VLMs) such as Gemini-3-Pro and GPT-5 only respond with text, which can be difficult for users to verify. We present SketchVLM, a training-free, model-agnostic framework that enables VLMs to produce non-destructive, editable SVG overlays on the input image to visually explain their answers. Across seven benchmarks spanning visual reasoning (maze navigation, ball-drop trajectory prediction, and object counting) and drawing (part labeling, connecting-the-dots, and drawing shapes around objects), SketchVLM improves visual reasoning task accuracy by up to +28.5 percentage points and annotation quality by up to 1.48x relative to image-editing and fine-tuned sketching baselines, while also producing annotations that are more faithful to the model's stated answer. We find that single-turn generation already achieves strong accuracy and annotation quality, and multi-turn generation opens up further opportunities for human-AI collaboration. An interactive demo and code are at https://sketchvlm.github.io/.

Mohammad Reza Taesiri, Brandon Collins, Logan Bolton et al.

Generative AI (GenAI) holds significant promise for automating everyday image editing tasks, especially following the recent release of GPT-4o on March 25, 2025. However, what subjects do people most often want edited? What kinds of editing actions do they want to perform (e.g., removing or stylizing the subject)? Do people prefer precise edits with predictable outcomes or highly creative ones? By understanding the characteristics of real-world requests and the corresponding edits made by freelance photo-editing wizards, can we draw lessons for improving AI-based editors and determine which types of requests can currently be handled successfully by AI editors? In this paper, we present a unique study addressing these questions by analyzing 83k requests from the past 12 years (2013-2025) on the Reddit community, which collected 305k PSR-wizard edits. According to human ratings, approximately only 33% of requests can be fulfilled by the best AI editors (including GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, SeedEdit). Interestingly, AI editors perform worse on low-creativity requests that require precise editing than on more open-ended tasks. They often struggle to preserve the identity of people and animals, and frequently make non-requested touch-ups. On the other side of the table, VLM judges (e.g., o1) perform differently from human judges and may prefer AI edits more than human edits. Code and qualitative examples are available at: https://psrdataset.github.io