Eye-Q: A Multilingual Benchmark for Visual Word Puzzle Solving and Image-to-Phrase Reasoning

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on standard vision-language benchmarks, yet often rely on surface-level recognition rather than deeper reasoning. We propose visual word puzzles as a challenging alternative, as they require discovering implicit visual cues, generating and revising hypotheses, and mapping perceptual evidence to non-literal concepts in ways that are difficult to solve via literal grounding, OCR-heavy shortcuts, or simple retrieval-style matching. We introduce Eye-Q, a multilingual benchmark designed to assess this form of complex visual understanding. Eye-Q contains 1,343 puzzles in which a model observes a conceptually dense scene with a brief description and must infer a specific target word or phrase. The puzzles are intentionally unstructured and cue-implicit, with distractors and contextual relationships that demand selective attention, abstraction, and associative inference. The benchmark spans English, Persian, Arabic, and cross-lingual puzzles. We evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs using an open-ended, human-aligned protocol that probes hypothesis formation and revision under lightweight assistance. Results reveal substantial performance gaps, especially on abstract and cross-lingual puzzles, highlighting limitations in current models' ability to construct and search over appropriate conceptual representations for flexible image-to-phrase inference; maximum accuracy reaches only 60.27%.

FIRE: Faithful Interpretable Recommendation Explanations

Natural language explanations in recommender systems are often framed as a review generation task, leveraging user reviews as ground-truth supervision. While convenient, this approach conflates a user's opinion with the system's reasoning, leading to explanations that may be fluent but fail to reflect the true logic behind recommendations. In this work, we revisit the core objective of explainable recommendation: to transparently communicate why an item is recommended by linking user needs to relevant item features. Through a comprehensive analysis of existing methods across multiple benchmark datasets, we identify common limitations-explanations that are weakly aligned with model predictions, vague or inaccurate in identifying user intents, and overly repetitive or generic. To overcome these challenges, we propose FIRE, a lightweight and interpretable framework that combines SHAP-based feature attribution with structured, prompt-driven language generation. FIRE produces faithful, diverse, and user-aligned explanations, grounded in the actual decision-making process of the model. Our results demonstrate that FIRE not only achieves competitive recommendation accuracy but also significantly improves explanation quality along critical dimensions such as alignment, structure, and faithfulness. This work highlights the need to move beyond the review-as-explanation paradigm and toward explanation methods that are both accountable and interpretable.