Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR): A New Benchmark for Multimodal Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16033v3
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:32:17 GMT
• Title: Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR): A New Benchmark for Multimodal Reasoning Models
• Authors: Qianqi Yan, Yue Fan, Hongquan Li, Shan Jiang, Yang Zhao, Xinze Guan, Ching-Chen Kuo, Xin Eric Wang,
• Abstract summary: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are predominantly trained and tested on consistent visual-textual inputs.<n>We propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning benchmark to assess MLLMs' ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches.<n>We evaluate six state-of-the-art MLLMs, showing that models with dedicated multimodal reasoning capabilities, such as o1, substantially outperform their counterparts.
• Score: 26.17300490736624
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are predominantly trained and tested on consistent visual-textual inputs, leaving open the question of whether they can handle inconsistencies in real-world, layout-rich content. To bridge this gap, we propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR) benchmark to assess MLLMs' ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches in artifacts such as webpages, presentation slides, and posters. MMIR comprises 534 challenging samples, each containing synthetically injected errors across five reasoning-heavy categories: Factual Contradiction, Identity Misattribution, Contextual Mismatch, Quantitative Discrepancy, and Temporal/Spatial Incoherence. We evaluate six state-of-the-art MLLMs, showing that models with dedicated multimodal reasoning capabilities, such as o1, substantially outperform their counterparts while open-source models remain particularly vulnerable to inconsistency errors. Detailed error analyses further show that models excel in detecting pairwise inconsistencies but struggle with inconsistencies confined to single elements in complex layouts. Probing experiments reveal that single-modality prompting, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Set-of-Mark (SoM) methods, yields marginal gains, revealing a key bottleneck in cross-modal reasoning. Our findings highlight the need for advanced multimodal reasoning and point to future research on multimodal inconsistency.

Related papers

• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• Beyond Unimodal Shortcuts: MLLMs as Cross-Modal Reasoners for Grounded Named Entity Recognition [51.68340973140949]
  Multimodal Named Entity Recognition (GMNER) aims to extract text-based entities, assign them semantic categories, and ground them to corresponding visual regions.<n> MLLMs exhibit $textbfmodality bias$, including visual bias and textual bias, which stems from their tendency to take unimodal shortcuts.<n>We propose Modality-aware Consistency Reasoning ($bfMCR$), which enforces structured cross-modal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T12:12:49Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• 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)
• CrossCheck-Bench: Diagnosing Compositional Failures in Multimodal Conflict Resolution [20.823419395675412]
  CrossCheck-Bench is a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating contradiction detection in multimodal inputs.<n>We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art vision-language models and observe a consistent performance drop as tasks shift from perceptual matching to logical contradiction detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T12:17:15Z)
• PRISMM-Bench: A Benchmark of Peer-Review Grounded Multimodal Inconsistencies [16.537126902822127]
  We introduce PRISMM-Bench, the first benchmark grounded in real reviewer-flagged inconsistencies in scientific papers.<n>We design three tasks, namely inconsistency identification, remedy and pair matching, which assess a model's capacity to detect, correct, and reason over inconsistencies.<n>We benchmark 21 leading LMMs, including large openweight models (GLM-4.5V 106B, InternVL3 78B) and proprietary models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5 with high reasoning)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T13:46:26Z)
• MARBLE: A Hard Benchmark for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning and Planning [10.602434753538535]
  The ability to process information from multiple modalities and to reason through it step-by-step remains a critical challenge in advancing artificial intelligence.<n>Here, we present MARBLE, a challenging multimodal reasoning benchmark that is designed to scrutinize multimodal language models.<n>We find that current MLLMs perform poorly on MARBLE -- all the 12 advanced models obtain near-random performance on M-Portal and 0% accuracy on M-Cube.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-28T19:44:32Z)
• Truth in the Few: High-Value Data Selection for Efficient Multi-Modal Reasoning [71.3533541927459]
  We propose a novel data selection paradigm termed Activation Reasoning Potential (RAP)<n>RAP identifies cognitive samples by estimating each sample's potential to stimulate genuine multi-modal reasoning.<n>Our RAP method consistently achieves superior performance using only 9.3% of the training data, while reducing computational costs by over 43%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T08:40:24Z)
• MMLU-Reason: Benchmarking Multi-Task Multi-modal Language Understanding and Reasoning [40.55833679660528]
  We introduce the MMLU-Reason, a new benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate multi-modal reasoning with explicit thinking.<n>The MMLU-Reason comprises 1) a high-difficulty dataset of 1,083 questions spanning six diverse reasoning types with symbolic depth and multi-hop demands.<n>Overall, the MMLU-Reason offers a scalable foundation for evaluating, comparing, and improving the next generation of multi-modal reasoning systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T09:41:55Z)
• MTR-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multi-Turn Reasoning Evaluation [56.87891213797931]
  We present MTR-Bench for Large Language Models' Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation.<n>Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks, and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities.<n>MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:12Z)
• Multi-LLM Collaborative Search for Complex Problem Solving [54.194370845153784]
  We propose the Mixture-of-Search-Agents (MoSA) paradigm to enhance search-based reasoning. MoSA integrates diverse reasoning pathways by combining independent exploration with iterative refinement among LLMs. Using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) as a backbone, MoSA enables multiple agents to propose and aggregate reasoning steps, resulting in improved accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:04Z)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) across diverse benchmarks.<n>We show significant performance drops when negation arguments are introduced to initially correct responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• Can MLLMs Reason in Multimodality? EMMA: An Enhanced MultiModal ReAsoning Benchmark [73.27104042215207]
  We introduce EMMA, a benchmark targeting organic multimodal reasoning across mathematics, physics, chemistry, and coding.<n>EMMA tasks demand advanced cross-modal reasoning that cannot be addressed by reasoning independently in each modality.<n>Our evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs on EMMA reveals significant limitations in handling complex multimodal and multi-step reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T18:55:52Z)
• WILT: A Multi-Turn, Memorization-Robust Inductive Logic Benchmark for LLMs [0.8883751685905831]
  We introduce the Wason Inductive Logic Test (WILT), a simple yet challenging multi-turn reasoning benchmark designed to resist memorization. Our findings reveal that LLMs struggle with this task, exhibiting distinct strengths and weaknesses. Despite these variations, the best-performing model achieves only 28% accuracy, highlighting a significant gap in LLM performance on complex multi-turn reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T18:29:13Z)
• MM-SpuBench: Towards Better Understanding of Spurious Biases in Multimodal LLMs [38.93090238335506]
  Spurious bias, a tendency to use spurious correlations between non-essential input attributes and target variables for predictions, has revealed a severe pitfall in deep learning models trained on single modality data. We introduce MM-SpuBench, a comprehensive visual question-answering (VQA) benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' reliance on nine distinct categories of spurious correlations. Our findings illuminate the persistence of the reliance on spurious correlations from these models and underscore the urge for new methodologies to mitigate spurious biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T20:29:16Z)
• Quantifying and Mitigating Unimodal Biases in Multimodal Large Language Models: A Causal Perspective [9.633811630889237]
  We propose a causal framework to interpret the biases in Visual Question Answering (VQA) problems. We introduce a novel dataset with 12,000 challenging VQA instances requiring multi-hop reasoning. Our experiments show that MLLMs perform poorly on MORE, indicating strong unimodal biases and limited semantic understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T08:38:49Z)
• Multimodal Large Language Models to Support Real-World Fact-Checking [80.41047725487645]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) carry the potential to support humans in processing vast amounts of information. While MLLMs are already being used as a fact-checking tool, their abilities and limitations in this regard are understudied. We propose a framework for systematically assessing the capacity of current multimodal models to facilitate real-world fact-checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T11:32:41Z)
• Two Failures of Self-Consistency in the Multi-Step Reasoning of LLMs [78.31625291513589]
  We argue that self-consistency is an important criteria for valid multi-step reasoning in tasks where the solution is composed of the answers to multiple sub-steps. We propose two types of self-consistency that are particularly important for multi-step reasoning -- hypothetical consistency and compositional consistency. We demonstrate that multiple variants of the GPT-3/-4 models exhibit poor consistency rates across both types of consistency on a variety of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:25:59Z)
• Cross-Attention is Not Enough: Incongruity-Aware Dynamic Hierarchical Fusion for Multimodal Affect Recognition [69.32305810128994]
  Incongruity between modalities poses a challenge for multimodal fusion, especially in affect recognition. We propose the Hierarchical Crossmodal Transformer with Dynamic Modality Gating (HCT-DMG), a lightweight incongruity-aware model. HCT-DMG: 1) outperforms previous multimodal models with a reduced size of approximately 0.8M parameters; 2) recognizes hard samples where incongruity makes affect recognition difficult; 3) mitigates the incongruity at the latent level in crossmodal attention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T01:24:15Z)

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.