MM-IQ: Benchmarking Human-Like Abstraction and Reasoning in Multimodal Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00698v2
• Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:20:49 GMT
• Title: MM-IQ: Benchmarking Human-Like Abstraction and Reasoning in Multimodal Models
• Authors: Huanqia Cai, Yijun Yang, Winston Hu,
• Abstract summary: MM-IQ is a comprehensive evaluation framework that comprises a large-scale training set with 4,776 visual reasoning problems and 2,710 meticulously curated test items spanning 8 distinct reasoning paradigms.<n>Our benchmark reveals striking limitations: even state-of-the-art architectures achieve only marginally superior performance to random chance.<n>Inspired by the recent surge of large reasoning models, we also release a multimodal reasoning model as the baseline that is trained via reinforcement learning with verifiable reward functions.
• Score: 5.02953506943752
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: IQ testing has served as a foundational methodology for evaluating human cognitive capabilities, deliberately decoupling assessment from linguistic background, language proficiency, or domain-specific knowledge to isolate core competencies in abstraction and reasoning. Yet, artificial intelligence research currently lacks systematic benchmarks to quantify these critical cognitive capabilities in multimodal systems. To address this crucial gap, we propose MM-IQ, a comprehensive evaluation framework, which comprises a large-scale training set with 4,776 visual reasoning problems and 2,710 meticulously curated test items spanning 8 distinct reasoning paradigms. Through systematic evaluation of existing open-source and proprietary multimodal models, our benchmark reveals striking limitations: even state-of-the-art architectures achieve only marginally superior performance to random chance (33.17% vs. 25% baseline accuracy). This substantial performance chasm highlights the inadequacy of current multimodal models in approximating fundamental human reasoning capacities, underscoring the need for paradigm-shifting advancements to bridge this cognitive divide. Moreover, inspired by the recent surge of large reasoning models, we also release a multimodal reasoning model as the baseline that is trained via reinforcement learning with verifiable reward functions, reaching competitive performance to the state-of-the-art with a notably smaller model size.

Related papers

• Decoding the Multimodal Maze: A Systematic Review on the Adoption of Explainability in Multimodal Attention-based Models [0.0]
  This systematic literature review analyzes research published between January 2020 and early 2024 that focuses on the explainability of multimodal models.<n>We find that evaluation methods for XAI in multimodal settings are largely non-systematic, lacking consistency, robustness, and consideration for modality-specific cognitive and contextual factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T13:14:20Z)
• Adaptive Token Boundaries: Integrating Human Chunking Mechanisms into Multimodal LLMs [0.0]
  This research presents a systematic investigation into the parallels between human cross-modal chunking mechanisms and token representation methodologies.<n>We propose a novel framework for dynamic cross-modal tokenization that incorporates adaptive boundaries, hierarchical representations, and alignment mechanisms grounded in cognitive science principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-03T09:14:24Z)
• 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)
• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making. With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems. We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• MDK12-Bench: A Multi-Discipline Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models [50.43793764203352]
  We introduce MDK12-Bench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark assessing the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs via real-world K-12 examinations. Our benchmark comprises 140K reasoning instances across diverse difficulty levels from primary school to 12th grade. It features 6,827 instance-level knowledge point annotations based on a well-organized knowledge structure, detailed answer explanations, difficulty labels and cross-year partitions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T08:06:53Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• On the Reasoning Capacity of AI Models and How to Quantify It [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have intensified the debate surrounding the fundamental nature of their reasoning capabilities.<n>While achieving high performance on benchmarks such as GPQA and MMLU, these models exhibit limitations in more complex reasoning tasks.<n>We propose a novel phenomenological approach that goes beyond traditional accuracy metrics to probe the underlying mechanisms of model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T16:58:18Z)
• Diving into Self-Evolving Training for Multimodal Reasoning [36.70979791148913]
  Self-evolving trainin has emerged as a key approach for complex reasoning tasks.<n>This paper reframes self-evolving training for multimodal reasoning through the lens of reinforcement learning.<n>We propose M-STAR, a framework that achieves consistent performance gains across models of varying sizes and diverse benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T10:18:41Z)
• Evaluating and Advancing Multimodal Large Language Models in Ability Lens [30.083110119139793]
  We introduce textbfAbilityLens, a unified benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs across six key perception abilities. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of current models, highlighting stability patterns and revealing a notable performance gap between open-source and closed-source models. We also design a simple ability-specific model merging method that combines the best ability checkpoint from early training stages, effectively mitigating performance decline due to ability conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T04:41:20Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models via Debates [43.40134389150456]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions, or rely on human input. We propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:02:31Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Boosting the Power of Small Multimodal Reasoning Models to Match Larger Models with Self-Consistency Training [49.3242278912771]
  Multimodal reasoning is a challenging task that requires models to reason across multiple modalities to answer questions. Existing approaches have made progress by incorporating language and visual modalities into a two-stage reasoning framework. We propose MC-CoT, a self-consistency training strategy that generates multiple rationales and answers, subsequently selecting the most accurate through a voting process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T17:09:48Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)

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.