Evaluating four representative open-source VLMs on 60 curated rallies via a zero-shot protocol, it is found that models remain weak across all diagnostic levels, with especially clear bottlenecks in spatial state, interaction binding, and terminal evidence.
Abstract
Visual Language Models (VLMs) excel at describing visible scene content but struggle to reason about dynamic multi-agent interactions, where action semantics depend on coordinated roles and spatial-temporal dependencies. We formalize this capability as \textbf{multi-agent tactical reasoning} and introduce \textbf{DoublesEval}, a diagnostic evaluation framework that leverages professional doubles badminton as a structurally tractable testbed. DoublesEval employs a key-moment-based protocol that decomposes rallies into tactically salient instants and probes models across four interpretable dimensions: atomic recognition, intra-segment composite understanding, cross-segment causal reasoning, and high-level tactical abstraction. This design isolates \emph{where} reasoning fails, rather than merely measuring answer correctness. To address observed failure modes, we propose \textbf{TacticCheck}, a lightweight constraint-guided test-time consistency checker that reranks candidate answers using the model's own lower-level tactical predictions, requiring no parameter updates or ground-truth labels at inference time. Evaluating four representative open-source VLMs on 60 curated rallies (yielding $\sim$9.6K structured instances) via a zero-shot protocol, we find that models remain weak across all diagnostic levels, with especially clear bottlenecks in spatial state, interaction binding, and terminal evidence. TacticCheck delivers consistent gains across all evaluated models, while still leaving a substantial gap to robust tactical reasoning. These results highlight the need for structured, interaction-aware evaluation paradigms for next-generation VLMs. The source code is available in \href{https://github.com/Chengjt1999/DoublesEval}{\textcolor{blue}{our GitHub repository}}.
Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles, demonstrating that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.
Jiayi Kuang, Ying-Hui Li, Yun-Ze Song et al.· 0 citations
This work proposes the Agent-Editing World Model (AEWM), which models how reasoning and actions shape future task progress rather than simulating tool responses, and combines AEWM with EditAct, which integrates these capabilities with real execution.
Shuang Sun, Guo-Xin Chen, Fan-Zhen Meng et al.· 0 citations
Results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.
DCFA is proposed, a training-free framework for failure attribution that integrates a global module that constructs structured causal-inspired dependency graphs from system traces to identify the initial decisive error, and a local module that applies local counterfactual-inspired reasoning to refine causal-inspired at...
Ze-Hao Wang, Lanjun Wang, Shi-Long Jin et al.· 1 citation
The results show that reliable scenario generation requires verifying realized behavior, not merely executable code, and demonstrate the value of explicit intermediate representations for verifiable and repairable language-driven co-simulation.
KC-Bench is introduced, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring model-level behavior across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.
Yaxing Lyu, Sheng-Jie Zhou, B. Toh et al.· 2 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.