arXiv subjects

Zhonghan Bian

Publications and source records attributed to Zhonghan Bian.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Groundbench: Multi-Resolution Polygon Grounding Exposes the Geometry Gap in Vision-Language Models

Bounding-box scores on RefCOCO-family grounding leave little room to distinguish frontier vision-language systems, yet boxes discard object shape. We introduce GroundingBench, a matched benchmark that re-targets the same 1,500 image-expression-referent triples to exact-N polygons at five vertex budgets. A fixed-denominator harness separately audits filled-region intersection over union (IoU) and legal-polygon completion. The strongest tested configuration reaches 88.2 box IoU and 97.1 accuracy at IoU >= .5 (Acc@.5), versus 57.7 and 69.2 for direct polygons; because these headline scores use different references, we also compare direct polygons with predicted boxes rasterised against the same contour target, obtaining 57.7 versus 57.3 when pooled. Performance is non-monotone in N and collapses at the densest budget, where legality failures compound residual geometric error. Qwen's thinking-setting contrast is the largest tested input-preserving configuration difference; under frozen templates, false spatial cues are more damaging than false colour cues, and target preference can remain high while contour tracing is poor. Alternate masks and a continuous-area scorer preserve the principal ordering. GroundingBench therefore measures an operational output-geometry gap spanning localisation, boundary construction, serialisation, and topology, rather than latent boundary perception alone.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

SocietyBench: Forecasting Counterfactual Social-World Evolution

Large language models (LLMs), and the agents built on top of them, are now benchmarked heavily on whether they can finish a task -- fix a bug, drive a browser, operate a GUI. A complementary social ability, namely how well a model understands and forecasts the way real social events unfold, has barely been measured. We introduce SocietyBench, an end-to-end benchmark that takes a one-line event topic, collects Web news and social-media posts across five platforms, distills them into a date-indexed timeline that keeps factual events and a public-opinion layer separate, and then turns every cutoff date on that timeline into an audited bank of forecasting questions. Questions are scored on two orthogonal 100-point axes: probability calibration and temporal accuracy. Before any model sees a timeline, a three-phase procedure replaces every named entity and shifts every date by a per-event constant, turning a real arc into a counterfactual social world -- structurally identical to what happened, but stripped of the surface labels a model could match against pre-training memory. On five heterogeneous events and 125 prediction points in Chinese and English editions, the strongest of six frontier LLMs reaches only 75.0 out of 100, against a trivial anchor of 50. The two axes come apart: a model can be calibration-strong but time-weak, or the reverse. Three agent frameworks built on a shared base model fail to improve on that base, and two model-free heuristics trail every LLM. Per-event gaps reach 21.4 points on a single axis, which is our main argument for evaluating on several events rather than one. All anonymized timelines, question banks, ground truth, and scoring code are released.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

WorldCup Arena: Prospective, Leakage-Free Evaluation of Frontier LLMs on a Live Tournament

Benchmarks that measure the forecasting ability of large language models are almost always retrospective: the event has happened, the answer is somewhere on the Web, and the evaluation must defend itself against memorisation. We report the opposite design. Over the 39 days of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, six frontier LLMs -- all with extended thinking and native server-side web search -- were asked before every kickoff, one match at a time, to fill in a seven-market prediction card for all 104 matches, plus 12 group winners and a pre-tournament outright pool; no answer existed when the question was asked, so the evaluation is leakage-free by construction rather than by filtering, and the frozen archive holds 4,494 scored predictions. What the tournament establishes is a set of behaviours the six systems share. On match outcome they average 63.9%, level with backing the bookmaker's favourite -- which is in fact what they usually do. They agree with one another far more often than they are right, so a majority vote adds nothing. They under-commit to draws and to goals, and crowd their scoreline picks onto a single prototypical result. Accuracy tracks how lopsided a fixture is rather than how much is known about it: it collapses in the closest ties, where the dossiers are richest, while questions about the tournament as a whole are answered well. On this task the current generation of frontier systems is not sharply differentiated: the standings hold up at the top and the bottom across the run and churn in the middle, and the margins stay narrow throughout. The briefing dossiers, fixtures and official results are released as a benchmark, together with the scoring code.

cs.CL↗