Affordance Benchmark for MLLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00893v2
• Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2025 10:06:31 GMT
• Title: Affordance Benchmark for MLLMs
• Authors: Junying Wang, Wenzhe Li, Yalun Wu, Yingji Liang, Yijin Guo, Chunyi Li, Haodong Duan, Zicheng Zhang, Guangtao Zhai,
• Abstract summary: We introduce **A4Bench**, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the affordance perception abilities of MLLMs across two dimensions.<n>We evaluate 17 MLLMs (nine proprietary and eight open-source) and compare them to human performance.<n>Results show that proprietary models generally outperform open-source ones, yet all models perform far below humans.
• Score: 38.62884479364572
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Affordance theory suggests that environments inherently provide action possibilities shaping perception and behavior. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance in vision-language tasks, their ability to perceive affordance, which is crucial for intuitive and safe interactions, remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce **A4Bench**, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the affordance perception abilities of MLLMs across two dimensions: 1) Constitutive Affordance, assessing understanding of inherent object properties through 1,282 questionanswer pairs spanning nine sub-disciplines, and 2) Transformative Affordance, probing dynamic and contextual nuances (e.g., misleading, time-dependent, cultural, or individual-specific affordance) with 718 challenging question-answer pairs. We evaluate 17 MLLMs (nine proprietary and eight open-source) and compare them to human performance. Results show that proprietary models generally outperform open-source ones, yet all models perform far below humans, especially in transformative affordance. Furthermore, even top-performing models, such as Gemini-2.0-Pro (18.05% overall exact match accuracy), significantly lag behind human performance (best: 85.34%, worst: 81.25%). These findings highlight critical gaps in environmental understanding of MLLMs and provide a foundation for advancing AI systems toward more robust, context-aware interactions.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Sensitivity of LLMs to Prior Context [2.377922603550519]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-turn dialogue and other sustained interactive scenarios.<n>We introduce a novel set of benchmarks that vary the volume and nature of prior context to measure sensitivity to contextual variations.<n>Our findings reveal that LLM performance on multiple-choice questions can degrade dramatically in multi-turn interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:09:32Z)
• 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.<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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• LR$^2$Bench: Evaluating Long-chain Reflective Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models via Constraint Satisfaction Problems [7.379503137362718]
  We introduce LR$2$Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the Long-chain Reflective Reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our experimental results reveal that even the most advanced reasoning-specific models, such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1-preview, struggle with tasks in LR$2$Bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T04:51:17Z)
• Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs [65.93003087656754]
  VisFactor is a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from a well-established cognitive psychology assessment.<n>We evaluate 20 frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) from GPT, Gemini, Claude, LLaMA, Qwen, and SEED families.<n>The best-performing model achieves a score of only 25.19 out of 100, with consistent failures on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• Law of the Weakest Link: Cross Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.91861246827797]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit the "Law of the Weakest Link," where cross-capability performance is significantly constrained by the weakest component. These results highlight the under-performance of LLMs in cross-capability tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T05:12:01Z)
• MACAROON: Training Vision-Language Models To Be Your Engaged Partners [95.32771929749514]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) generate detailed responses even when questions are ambiguous or unlabeled. In this study, we aim to shift LVLMs from passive answer providers to proactive engaged partners. We introduce MACAROON, self-iMaginAtion for ContrAstive pReference OptimizatiON, which instructs LVLMs to autonomously generate contrastive response pairs for unlabeled questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T09:27:33Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)
• 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)

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.