Evaluates vision-language models' ability to comprehend long-form sequential manga narratives, focusing on story synthesis, character grounding, and temporal reasoning across non-linear, multi-panel sequences. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Re:Verse, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports BERTScore.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill re-verse-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Re Verse Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-re-verse-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: re-verse-eval
description: Evaluates vision-language models' ability to comprehend long-form sequential manga narratives, focusing on story synthesis, character grounding, and temporal reasoning across non-linear, multi-panel sequences. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Re:Verse, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports BERTScore.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2508.08508
bibtex_key: baranwal2025revers
confidence: high
---
# re-verse-eval
> Re:Verse -- Can Your VLM Read a Manga? — Baranwal et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.08508, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates vision-language models' ability to comprehend long-form sequential manga narratives, focusing on story synthesis, character grounding, and temporal reasoning across non-linear, multi-panel sequences.
## Datasets
- **Re:Verse** — total 308; splits: test (308); repo https://github.com/eternal-f1ame/Re-Verse
## Metrics
- `BERTScore` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Computes cosine similarity between contextual embeddings of generated and reference text using bert-base-uncased, then aggregates precision, recall, and F1 scores.
- `ROUGE` — range: [0, 1]
- Measures n-gram overlap between generated and reference texts, typically reporting ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L recall and F1.
- `STTR` — range: [0, 1]
- Sliding Text-to-Text Ratio; uses a sliding window (size 50, step 10) to assess text quality and fluency across sequences.
- `Lexical density` — range: [0, 1]
- Ratio of content words to total word count in the generated narrative.
- `NER density` — range: [0, 1]
- Ratio of named entity mentions to total word count, validated with spaCy and story-specific terminology.
- `Accuracy` — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly predicted next/intermediate pages or correctly answered VQA questions.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Manga pages (resized to 224× width, preserving aspect ratio) with spatial annotations (bounding boxes, semantic tags for text bubbles/thoughts) and corresponding light novel passages or sequential page contexts.
**Output**: For generation/summarization: coherent prose narratives or summaries. For grounding: spatial locations, semantic types, and character attributions. For temporal/VQA: predicted page indices or text answers.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score(predictions, gold):
scores = {}
# Generation/Summarization
scores['bertscore'] = compute_bertscore(predictions['text'], gold['text'], model='bert-base-uncased')
scores['rouge'] = compute_rouge(predictions['text'], gold['text'])
scores['sttr'] = compute_sttr(predictions['text'], window=50, step=10)
scores['lexical_density'] = count_content_words(predictions['text']) / len(predictions['text'].split())
scores['ner_density'] = count_ner_entities(predictions['text'], nlp=spacy_model) / len(predictions['text'].split())
# Temporal/VQA
scores['accuracy'] = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions['pred'], gold['gold']) if p == g) / len(gold['gold'])
# Apply proportional penalties and thresholds as defined in protocol
return apply_penalty_system(scores)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models often mistake surface-level visual-textual recognition for deep narrative comprehension, failing on long-range coherence and causal inference.
- Character attribution errors are frequent due to over-reliance on pronouns/honorifics without proper visual grounding or series-specific knowledge.
- Divergence between LLM judges (GPT-4o) and automated lexical metrics can obscure true narrative quality gaps.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We employ both an LLM (GPT-4o *[[22]]*) and automated metrics (BERTScore, ROUGE, STTR, lexical density, NER density), with statistical significance testing and embedding-based cross-modal alignment (details in supplementary). Temporal reasoning tasks use accuracy measures within VQA frameworks.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{baranwal2025revers,
title={Re:Verse -- Can Your VLM Read a Manga?},
author={Baranwal et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2508.08508}
}
```
- arXiv: 2508.08508
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!