Identifying and Resolving Pitfalls of Knowledge-Based VQA Benchmarks: Auditing, Repairing, and Augmenting
For researchers evaluating Visual Language Models on knowledge-based reasoning, this work reveals that current benchmarks are unreliable and proposes methods to fix them.
The authors identify systematic flaws in existing KB-VQA benchmarks, such as missing or contradicted answers and visually trivial scenes, which distort model rankings and overestimate reasoning capabilities. They introduce audit-and-repair and augmentation protocols, leading to markedly different performance trends upon re-evaluation.
Knowledge-Based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) aims to evaluate whether Visual Language Models (VLMs) can retrieve, ground, and reason over external structured knowledge beyond visual evidence. In practice, answer accuracy is widely adopted as the primary evaluation metric, implicitly treating correctness as a proxy for knowledge-grounded reasoning. However, for existing KB-VQA benchmarks, this proxy relies on critical assumptions that are often overlooked and rendered unreliable by benchmark issues: annotated answer must be derivable from the associated knowledge base, question must be well-posed with sufficient constraints, and visual setting must meaningfully require grounded disambiguation. In this work, we show that these assumptions are systematically violated in existing KB-VQA benchmarks. Our audit reveals substantial instances with missing or contradicted answers and underspecified questions that render accuracy a misleading metric. Furthermore, we find that existing datasets rely on visually trivial, single-entity scenes that bypass the need for sophisticated visual-to-knowledge mapping. We demonstrate that even with controlled architectures, these flaws lead to distorted model rankings and overestimations of reasoning capabilities. To address this, we introduce (1) a principled audit-and-repair protocol that restores answer derivability and question clarity, and (2) a controlled multi-entity augmentation protocol that introduces visual ambiguity to challenge initial retrieval and grounded reasoning. Re-evaluation under corrected and augmented settings yields markedly different performance trends. Our findings call for rethinking evaluation protocols and designing more interaction-aware KB-VQA benchmarks that prioritize verifiable reasoning over simple matching.