NPHardEval4V: A Dynamic Reasoning Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01777v2
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:26:04 GMT
• Title: NPHardEval4V: A Dynamic Reasoning Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models
• Authors: Lizhou Fan, Wenyue Hua, Xiang Li, Kaijie Zhu, Mingyu Jin, Lingyao Li, Haoyang Ling, Jinkui Chi, Jindong Wang, Xin Ma, Yongfeng Zhang
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark, NPHardEval4V, to evaluate the pure reasoning abilities of MLLMs. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies in reasoning abilities across different models. We also investigate the impact of different prompting styles, including visual, text, and combined visual and text prompts, on the reasoning abilities of MLLMs.
• Score: 34.91372939329467
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Understanding the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) is an important area of research. In this study, we introduce a dynamic benchmark, NPHardEval4V, aimed at addressing the existing gaps in evaluating the pure reasoning abilities of MLLMs. Our benchmark aims to provide a venue to disentangle the effect of various factors such as image recognition and instruction following, from the overall performance of the models, allowing us to focus solely on evaluating their reasoning abilities. It is built by converting textual description of questions from NPHardEval to image representations. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies in reasoning abilities across different models and highlight the relatively weak performance of MLLMs compared to LLMs in terms of reasoning. We also investigate the impact of different prompting styles, including visual, text, and combined visual and text prompts, on the reasoning abilities of MLLMs, demonstrating the different impacts of multimodal inputs in model performance. Unlike traditional benchmarks, which focus primarily on static evaluations, our benchmark will be updated monthly to prevent overfitting and ensure a more authentic and fine-grained evaluation of the models. We believe that this benchmark can aid in understanding and guide the further development of reasoning abilities in MLLMs. The benchmark dataset and code are available at https://github.com/lizhouf/NPHardEval4V

Related papers

• Can Unified Generation and Understanding Models Maintain Semantic Equivalence Across Different Output Modalities? [61.533560295383786]
  Unified Multimodal Large Language Models (U-MLLMs) integrate understanding and generation within a single architecture.<n>We observe that U-MLLMs fail to maintain semantic equivalence when required to render the same results in the image modality.<n>We introduce VGUBench, a framework to decouple reasoning logic from generation fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T06:23:56Z)
• PENDULUM: A Benchmark for Assessing Sycophancy in Multimodal Large Language Models [43.767942065379366]
  Sycophancy is a tendency of AI models to agree with user input at the expense of factual accuracy or in contradiction of visual evidence.<n>We introduce a comprehensive evaluation benchmark, textitPENDULUM, comprising approximately 2,000 human-curated Visual Question Answering pairs.<n>We observe substantial variability in model robustness and a pronounced susceptibility to sycophantic and hallucinatory behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T12:49:12Z)
• LTD-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models by Letting Them Draw [57.237152905238084]
  LTD-Bench is a breakthrough benchmark for large language models (LLMs)<n>It transforms LLM evaluation from abstract scores to directly observable visual outputs by requiring models to generate drawings through dot matrices or executable code.<n> LTD-Bench's visual outputs enable powerful diagnostic analysis, offering a potential approach to investigate model similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T08:11:23Z)
• Can MLLMs Guide Me Home? A Benchmark Study on Fine-Grained Visual Reasoning from Transit Maps [56.76175383189738]
  We introduce ReasonMap, a benchmark designed to assess the fine-grained visual understanding and spatial reasoning abilities of MLLMs.<n>ReasonMap encompasses high-resolution transit maps from 30 cities across 13 countries and includes 1,008 question-answer pairs spanning two question types and three templates.<n> Comprehensive evaluations of 15 popular MLLMs, including both base and reasoning variants, reveal a counterintuitive pattern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T12:33:52Z)
• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories. These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives. Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• V-MAGE: A Game Evaluation Framework for Assessing Visual-Centric Capabilities in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.27290155010533]
  V-MAGE is a game-based evaluation framework designed to assess visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. We use V-MAGE to evaluate leading MLLMs, revealing significant challenges in their visual perception and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T15:43:01Z)
• CrossWordBench: Evaluating the Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs and LVLMs with Controllable Puzzle Generation [53.452699232071495]
  We introduce CrossWordBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) through the medium of crossword puzzles.<n>Our evaluation reveals that reasoning LLMs substantially outperform non-reasoning models by effectively leveraging crossing-letter constraints.<n>Our findings highlight limitations of the reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and LVLMs, and provide an effective approach for creating multimodal constrained tasks for future evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T20:03:36Z)
• VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity [34.29409506366145]
  VERIFY is a benchmark designed to isolate and rigorously evaluate the visual reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs. Each problem is accompanied by a human-annotated reasoning path, making it the first to provide in-depth evaluation of model decision-making processes. We propose novel metrics that assess visual reasoning fidelity beyond mere accuracy, highlighting critical imbalances in current model reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T16:26:11Z)
• VisualSimpleQA: A Benchmark for Decoupled Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models in Fact-Seeking Question Answering [28.045285777736876]
  We introduce VisualSimpleQA, a multimodal fact-seeking benchmark with two key features.<n>It enables streamlined and decoupled evaluation of LVLMs in visual and linguistic modalities.<n> Experiments on 15 LVLMs show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4o achieve merely 60%+ correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T07:25:32Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information. We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning. We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• VisFactor: Benchmarking Fundamental Visual Cognition in Multimodal Large Language Models [62.667142971664575]
  We introduce VisFactor, a novel benchmark derived from the Factor-Referenced Cognitive Test (FRCT) VisFactor digitalizes vision-related FRCT subtests to systematically evaluate MLLMs across essential visual cognitive tasks. We present a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs, such as GPT-4o, Gemini-Pro, and Qwen-VL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• CounterBench: A Benchmark for Counterfactuals Reasoning in Large Language Models [5.409370027524351]
  We evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in counterfactual reasoning.<n>We introduce a new benchmark dataset, CounterBench, comprising 1K counterfactual reasoning questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T06:19:37Z)
• MET-Bench: Multimodal Entity Tracking for Evaluating the Limitations of Vision-Language and Reasoning Models [0.0]
  We introduce MET-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of vision-language models to track entity states across modalities.<n>Our findings reveal a significant performance gap between text-based and image-based tracking and that this performance gap stems from deficits in visual reasoning rather than perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T19:39:58Z)
• A Survey on Benchmarks of Multimodal Large Language Models [65.87641718350639]
  This paper presents a comprehensive review of 200 benchmarks and evaluations for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) We focus on (1)perception and understanding, (2)cognition and reasoning, (3)specific domains, (4)key capabilities, and (5)other modalities. Our key argument is that evaluation should be regarded as a crucial discipline to support the development of MLLMs better.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T09:52:02Z)
• Multimodal Causal Reasoning Benchmark: Challenging Vision Large Language Models to Infer Causal Links Between Siamese Images [19.923665989164387]
  We propose a novel Multimodal Causal Reasoning benchmark, namely MuCR, to challenge Large Language Models. Specifically, we introduce a prompt-driven image synthesis approach to create siamese images with embedded semantic causality and visual cues. Our extensive experiments reveal that the current state-of-the-art VLLMs are not as skilled at multimodal causal reasoning as we might have hoped.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T12:04:32Z)
• Evaluating Linguistic Capabilities of Multimodal LLMs in the Lens of Few-Shot Learning [15.919493497867567]
  This study aims to evaluate the performance of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on the VALSE benchmark. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of state-of-the-art MLLMs, varying in model size and pretraining datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T11:26:47Z)
• Visualization Literacy of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comparative Study [12.367399155606162]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) combine the inherent power of large language models (LLMs) with the renewed capabilities to reason about the multimodal context. Many recent works in visualization have demonstrated MLLMs' capability to understand and interpret visualization results and explain the content of the visualization to users in natural language. In this work, we aim to fill the gap by utilizing the concept of visualization literacy to evaluate MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T17:52:16Z)
• RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Visual CoT: Advancing Multi-Modal Language Models with a Comprehensive Dataset and Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [40.972648044298374]
  Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in various VQA tasks. They often lack interpretability and struggle with complex visual inputs. We introduce the large-scale Visual CoT dataset comprising 438k question-answer pairs. We propose a multi-turn processing pipeline that dynamically focuses on visual inputs and provides interpretable thoughts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:59:23Z)
• CODIS: Benchmarking Context-Dependent Visual Comprehension for Multimodal Large Language Models [58.95889895912716]
  We introduce a new benchmark, named as CODIS, designed to assess the ability of models to use context provided in free-form text to enhance visual comprehension. Our findings indicate that MLLMs consistently fall short of human performance on this benchmark. This underscores the pressing need to enhance the ability of MLLMs to comprehend visuals in a context-dependent manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:21:12Z)
• Mementos: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning over Image Sequences [80.54979242912944]
  This paper introduces Mementos, a new benchmark designed to assess MLLMs' sequential image reasoning abilities. We find that MLLMs struggle to accurately describe dynamic information about given image sequences, often leading to hallucinations/misrepresentations of objects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T07:10:13Z)
• Behind the Magic, MERLIM: Multi-modal Evaluation Benchmark for Large Image-Language Models [50.653838482083614]
  This paper introduces a scalable test-bed to assess the capabilities of IT-LVLMs on fundamental computer vision tasks.<n> MERLIM contains over 300K image-question pairs and has a strong focus on detecting cross-modal "hallucination" events in IT-LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-03T16:39:36Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)
• Lost in Translation: When GPT-4V(ision) Can't See Eye to Eye with Text. A Vision-Language-Consistency Analysis of VLLMs and Beyond [7.760124498553333]
  We study whether vision-language models execute vision and language tasks consistently or independently. We introduce a systematic framework that quantifies the capability disparities between different modalities in the multi-modal setting. We introduce "Vision Description Prompting," a method that effectively improves performance in challenging vision-related tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:45:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.