Texture or Semantics? Vision-Language Models Get Lost in Font Recognition

Zhecheng Li, Guoxian Song, Yujun Cai, Zhen Xiong, Junsong Yuan, Yiwei Wang

Keywords: vision language models, font recognition, texture or semantics, stroop effect

TL;DR: We introduce a special two-level benchmark to assess VLMs’ font recognition abilities. The results indicate that VLMs perform poorly on font recognition tasks and are easily influenced by visual cues rather than semantic understanding.

Abstract: Modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit remarkable visual and linguistic capabilities, achieving impressive performance in various tasks such as image recognition and object localization. However, their effectiveness in fine-grained tasks remains an open question. In everyday scenarios, individuals encountering design materials, such as magazines, typography tutorials, research papers, or branding content, may wish to identify aesthetically pleasing fonts used in the text. Given their multimodal capabilities and free accessibility, many VLMs are often considered potential tools for font recognition. This raises a fundamental question: Do VLMs truly possess the capability to recognize fonts? To investigate this, we introduce the Font Recognition Benchmark (FRB), a compact and well-structured dataset comprising 15 commonly used fonts. FRB includes two versions: (i) an easy version, where 10 sentences are rendered in different fonts, and (ii) a hard version, where each text sample consists of the names of the 15 fonts themselves, introducing a stroop effect that challenges model perception. Through extensive evaluation of various VLMs on font recognition tasks, we arrive at the following key findings: (i) Current VLMs exhibit limited font recognition capabilities, with many state-of-the-art models failing to achieve satisfactory performance and being easily affected by the stroop effect introduced by textual information. (ii) Few-shot learning and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting provide minimal benefits in improving font recognition accuracy across different VLMs. (iii) Attention analysis sheds light on the inherent limitations of VLMs in capturing semantic features.

Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the COLM Code of Ethics on https://colmweb.org/CoE.html

Author Guide: I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://colmweb.org/AuthorGuide.html

Submission Number: 641