Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40938963›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Visual enumeration remains challenging for multimodal generative AI.

Alberto Testolin, Kuinan Hou, Marco Zorzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alberto TestolinDepartment of General Psychology and Department of Mathematics, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7062-4861
Kuinan HouDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Marco ZorziDepartment of General Psychology and Padova Neuroscience Center University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many animal species can approximately judge the number of objects in a visual scene at a single glance, and humans can further determine the exact cardinality of a set by deploying systematic counting procedures. In contrast, it has been observed that even state-of-the-art AI systems have very limited enumeration skills. In this work, we propose two benchmark tasks inspired by cognitive science that allow to precisely evaluate the visual enumeration capabilities of multimodal foundation models, thereby providing an objective measure of their number sense and counting level. We consider popular visual question answering models (BLIP, LLaVA and ViLT) as well as advanced image-to-text (Gemini, GPT and Qwen) and text-to-image (DALL-E, FLUX and Stable Diffusion) AI systems. Our analyses show that even the most advanced models cannot reliably name the number of objects in simple visual stimuli or generate images containing a target number of items, as indexed by their low accuracy in both types of tasks. Especially for numbers outside the subitizing range, their responses are often far from the target numerosity, and, in stark contrast with human behavior, in many cases the distribution of errors depends on the object category. We also observe some striking mistakes with small numbers. Our findings demonstrate that developing an intuitive visual understanding of number remains challenging for AI models and that merely increasing model size might not be a viable strategy to promote the emergence of systematic counting skills. We release the full code of our benchmark to facilitate the evaluation of enumeration skills in future AI systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceVisual PerceptionHumansPattern Recognition, Visual

Identifiers

PMID40938963
PMCPMC12431670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.