{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"realworldqa","slug":"realworldqa","name":"RealWorldQA","type":"dataset","url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/xai-org/RealWorldQA","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/realworldqa","categories":["model-training","testing-quality"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"realworldqa__cap_0","uri":"capability://image.visual.spatial.reasoning.evaluation.in.visual.contexts","name":"spatial-reasoning evaluation in visual contexts","description":"Evaluates multimodal models' ability to understand spatial relationships, object positioning, and geometric reasoning within real-world photographic scenes. The benchmark presents images with questions requiring models to reason about relative positions, distances, containment, and spatial arrangements without relying on synthetic or controlled environments, forcing models to handle natural occlusion, perspective distortion, and complex scene layouts.","intents":["Assess whether my vision-language model understands spatial relationships in uncontrolled real-world photographs","Benchmark my model's ability to answer questions about object positioning and geometric reasoning","Identify gaps in spatial understanding compared to human performance on natural images"],"best_for":["multimodal AI researchers evaluating vision-language models","teams developing embodied AI or robotics systems requiring spatial understanding","organizations benchmarking VLM capabilities for real-world deployment"],"limitations":["Limited to 2D spatial reasoning — does not evaluate 3D depth estimation or temporal spatial reasoning","Real-world photographs introduce confounding variables (lighting, occlusion, perspective) that make it harder to isolate spatial reasoning ability","No fine-grained error analysis per spatial relationship type (adjacency vs containment vs relative position)"],"requires":["Multimodal model capable of processing images and text queries","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library or compatible dataset loading framework"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph)","text (natural language question)"],"output_types":["text (model-generated answer)","structured evaluation metrics (accuracy, F1)"],"categories":["image-visual","evaluation-benchmark"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__cap_1","uri":"capability://image.visual.object.counting.capability.assessment","name":"object-counting capability assessment","description":"Benchmarks multimodal models' ability to accurately count objects in real-world photographs, including handling of partial occlusion, dense clusters, and varying object scales. The evaluation presents images where models must enumerate instances of specific object categories without access to bounding boxes or segmentation masks, requiring robust visual attention and numerical reasoning on naturally-occurring scenes.","intents":["Measure my VLM's accuracy at counting objects in real-world images with occlusion and scale variation","Identify whether my model struggles with specific object types or density levels","Compare counting performance across different vision-language architectures"],"best_for":["computer vision teams building inventory management or retail analytics systems","researchers studying numerical reasoning in multimodal models","organizations evaluating VLMs for practical counting tasks (crowd estimation, stock monitoring)"],"limitations":["Counting accuracy is sensitive to object definition ambiguity (e.g., partial objects, reflections) which may not be consistently annotated","No stratification by object density, scale, or occlusion level — makes it hard to identify specific failure modes","Real-world images introduce background clutter that may confound counting ability with object detection ability"],"requires":["Multimodal model with numerical reasoning capability","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph with multiple object instances)","text (question asking for count of specific object type)"],"output_types":["text (numerical answer)","structured metrics (counting accuracy, off-by-one error rate)"],"categories":["image-visual","evaluation-benchmark"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__cap_2","uri":"capability://image.visual.scene.text.reading.and.extraction.from.images","name":"scene-text reading and extraction from images","description":"Evaluates multimodal models' ability to read, recognize, and extract text visible in real-world photographs including signage, labels, documents, and handwritten text. The benchmark tests OCR-like capabilities integrated into vision-language models, requiring models to handle variable text orientation, fonts, lighting conditions, and partial occlusion without explicit OCR preprocessing, assessing end-to-end text understanding in natural scenes.","intents":["Assess whether my VLM can reliably read text in real-world images without a separate OCR pipeline","Benchmark text recognition accuracy across different fonts, orientations, and lighting conditions","Evaluate if my model can answer questions that require reading and understanding scene text"],"best_for":["teams building document understanding or form processing systems","organizations evaluating VLMs for retail/signage analysis applications","researchers studying multimodal text understanding without explicit OCR"],"limitations":["Text recognition accuracy depends heavily on image resolution and quality — benchmark may not reflect performance on low-resolution or degraded images","No distinction between printed and handwritten text performance","Real-world text includes multiple languages and scripts which may not be evenly represented in evaluation"],"requires":["Multimodal model with text recognition capability","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph containing visible text)","text (question asking about text content or requiring text extraction)"],"output_types":["text (extracted text or answer based on text reading)","structured metrics (character error rate, word error rate, exact match accuracy)"],"categories":["image-visual","evaluation-benchmark"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__cap_3","uri":"capability://image.visual.common.sense.reasoning.on.visual.scenes","name":"common-sense reasoning on visual scenes","description":"Evaluates multimodal models' ability to apply world knowledge and common-sense reasoning to answer questions about real-world photographs that require understanding of object affordances, social conventions, physical laws, and practical reasoning. The benchmark presents images where correct answers depend on implicit knowledge about how the world works rather than explicit visual features, testing whether models have internalized practical understanding during pretraining.","intents":["Measure whether my VLM can apply common-sense reasoning to visual scenes beyond pattern matching","Identify gaps in practical world knowledge compared to human performance","Evaluate if my model understands object affordances and social conventions in real-world contexts"],"best_for":["AI safety researchers studying VLM reasoning and knowledge gaps","teams building embodied AI systems requiring practical world understanding","organizations evaluating VLMs for real-world deployment in interactive systems"],"limitations":["Common-sense reasoning is culturally and contextually dependent — benchmark may reflect Western/English-language biases in annotation","Difficult to distinguish between visual understanding and memorized knowledge from pretraining","No stratification by reasoning type (physical, social, functional) — makes it hard to identify specific knowledge gaps"],"requires":["Multimodal model with reasoning capability","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph)","text (question requiring common-sense reasoning)"],"output_types":["text (reasoned answer)","structured metrics (accuracy, reasoning quality assessment)"],"categories":["image-visual","planning-reasoning","evaluation-benchmark"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__cap_4","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.multimodal.model.evaluation.and.comparison.framework","name":"multimodal model evaluation and comparison framework","description":"Provides a standardized benchmark dataset and evaluation protocol for comparing vision-language models on a diverse set of real-world visual understanding tasks. The framework enables researchers to load the dataset via HuggingFace, run their models against consistent test cases, and generate comparable metrics across spatial reasoning, counting, text reading, and common-sense tasks, facilitating reproducible evaluation and model comparison.","intents":["Compare my VLM's performance against other models on a standardized benchmark","Generate reproducible evaluation metrics for my vision-language model","Identify which visual understanding capabilities my model excels or struggles with"],"best_for":["multimodal AI researchers publishing VLM evaluations","organizations benchmarking multiple vision-language models for production deployment","teams tracking VLM capability improvements over time"],"limitations":["Benchmark is static — does not adapt to model improvements or emerging failure modes","No built-in support for fine-grained error analysis or per-category performance breakdown","Evaluation requires manual implementation of metric calculation — no standardized evaluation harness provided"],"requires":["Python 3.7+","HuggingFace Datasets library","Multimodal model implementation with inference capability","Custom evaluation script to compute metrics"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph)","text (question)"],"output_types":["structured metrics (accuracy, F1, counting error, etc.)","comparison tables across models"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","evaluation-benchmark"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__cap_5","uri":"capability://image.visual.real.world.image.dataset.curation.and.annotation","name":"real-world image dataset curation and annotation","description":"Curates and annotates a collection of real-world photographs with diverse visual understanding tasks (spatial reasoning, counting, text reading, common-sense questions) rather than using synthetic or controlled images. The curation process selects images that require practical visual understanding without relying on dataset-specific artifacts, and annotations include question-answer pairs that test genuine multimodal reasoning rather than superficial pattern matching.","intents":["Access a curated dataset of real-world images with diverse visual understanding annotations","Use naturally-occurring photographs to evaluate my model without synthetic dataset artifacts","Study how vision-language models perform on practical visual understanding tasks"],"best_for":["multimodal AI researchers needing real-world evaluation data","organizations building production VLM systems requiring practical benchmarking","teams studying VLM robustness to natural visual variation"],"limitations":["Real-world images introduce confounding variables (lighting, occlusion, perspective) that make error attribution harder than synthetic datasets","Annotation quality depends on human annotators' consistency and expertise — no inter-annotator agreement metrics provided","Dataset size and diversity may not cover all visual understanding scenarios relevant to specific applications"],"requires":["Access to HuggingFace Datasets library","Python 3.7+"],"input_types":["image (real-world photograph)"],"output_types":["structured dataset with images, questions, and ground-truth answers"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"realworldqa__headline","uri":"capability://model.training.visual.question.answering.benchmark.dataset","name":"visual question answering benchmark dataset","description":"A comprehensive dataset designed for evaluating visual question answering models using real-world images, requiring spatial reasoning and common-sense understanding, ideal for researchers in multimodal AI.","intents":["best visual question answering dataset","dataset for training multimodal models","benchmark for spatial reasoning in AI","real-world image QA dataset","VQA dataset for model evaluation"],"best_for":["researchers in AI","developers building VQA systems"],"limitations":[],"requires":[],"input_types":["images","questions"],"output_types":["answers"],"categories":["model-training","testing-quality"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":57,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["Multimodal model capable of processing images and text queries","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library or compatible dataset loading framework","Multimodal model with numerical reasoning capability","Access to HuggingFace Datasets library","Multimodal model with text recognition capability","Multimodal model with reasoning capability","Python 3.7+","HuggingFace Datasets library","Multimodal model implementation with inference capability","Custom evaluation script to compute metrics"],"failure_modes":["Limited to 2D spatial reasoning — does not evaluate 3D depth estimation or temporal spatial reasoning","Real-world photographs introduce confounding variables (lighting, occlusion, perspective) that make it harder to isolate spatial reasoning ability","No fine-grained error analysis per spatial relationship type (adjacency vs containment vs relative position)","Counting accuracy is sensitive to object definition ambiguity (e.g., partial objects, reflections) which may not be consistently annotated","No stratification by object density, scale, or occlusion level — makes it hard to identify specific failure modes","Real-world images introduce background clutter that may confound counting ability with object detection ability","Text recognition accuracy depends heavily on image resolution and quality — benchmark may not reflect performance on low-resolution or degraded images","No distinction between printed and handwritten text performance","Real-world text includes multiple languages and scripts which may not be evenly represented in evaluation","Common-sense reasoning is culturally and contextually dependent — benchmark may reflect Western/English-language biases in annotation","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.7,"quality":0.8500000000000001,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.3,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.3,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:25.061Z","last_scraped_at":null,"last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=realworldqa","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=realworldqa"}},"signature":"jOOiNZ6JGINHXGDF7qPJtX/E9LCHsTf5lXirkekBRE4E4WNv0blBfLO/cuXVALr6Z98CsIPI0F6/sUReqYu2Ag==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T03:54:48.795Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/realworldqa","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/realworldqa","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=realworldqa","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}