VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00043v2
• Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 18:47:38 GMT
• Title: VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning
• Authors: Nilay Yilmaz, Maitreya Patel, Yiran Lawrence Luo, Tejas Gokhale, Chitta Baral, Suren Jayasuriya, Yezhou Yang,
• Abstract summary: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
• Score: 63.0285363282581
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information. Despite their exceptional performance on visual understanding benchmarks, measuring their ability to reason abstractly across multiple images remains a significant challenge. To address this, we introduce VOILA, a large-scale, open-ended, dynamic benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning. VOILA employs an analogical mapping approach in the visual domain, requiring models to generate an image that completes an analogy between two given image pairs, reference and application, without relying on predefined choices. Our experiments demonstrate that the analogical reasoning tasks in VOILA present a challenge to MLLMs. Through multi-step analysis, we reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning. Notably, we observe that performance improves when following a multi-step strategy of least-to-most prompting. Comprehensive evaluations on open-source models and GPT-4o show that on text-based answers, the best accuracy for challenging scenarios is 13% (LLaMa 3.2) and even for simpler tasks is only 29% (GPT-4o), while human performance is significantly higher at 70% across both difficulty levels.

Related papers

• Seeing from Another Perspective: Evaluating Multi-View Understanding in MLLMs [41.072699990427374]
  Multi-view understanding is a fundamental challenge in Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to be used as embodied agents. We propose All-Angles Bench, a benchmark of over 2,100 human carefully annotated multi-view question-answer pairs across 90 real-world scenes. Our experiments, benchmark on 27 representative MLLMs including Gemini-2.0-Flash, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and GPT-4o against human evaluators reveals a substantial performance gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• 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)
• iVISPAR -- An Interactive Visual-Spatial Reasoning Benchmark for VLMs [4.381263829108405]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are known to struggle with spatial reasoning and visual alignment.<n>We introduce iVISPAR, an interactive multi-modal benchmark designed to evaluate the spatial reasoning capabilities of VLMs acting as agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T14:29:01Z)
• Polymath: A Challenging Multi-modal Mathematical Reasoning Benchmark [53.61633384281524]
  PolyMATH is a benchmark aimed at evaluating the general cognitive reasoning abilities of MLLMs. The best scores achieved on PolyMATH are 41%, 36%, and 27%, obtained by Claude-3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o and Gemini-1.5 Pro respectively. A further fine-grained error analysis reveals that these models struggle to understand spatial relations and perform drawn-out, high-level reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T20:35:41Z)
• Q-Bench+: A Benchmark for Multi-modal Foundation Models on Low-level Vision from Single Images to Pairs [71.07108539262721]
  We design benchmark settings to emulate human language responses related to low-level vision. We extend the low-level perception-related question-answering and description evaluations of MLLMs from single images to image pairs. We demonstrate that several MLLMs have decent low-level visual competencies on single images, but only GPT-4V exhibits higher accuracy on pairwise comparisons than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T06:44:11Z)
• 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)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria [49.500322937449326]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating queries without considering user experiences. We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T12:04:25Z)

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.