Previous works identify sensitivity to option order as a key issue in multiple-choice VQA (MC-VQA) evaluation and propose protocols to mitigate this effect. We show that such mitigation is insufficient to ensure the validity of MC-VQA as a reliable benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLMs): performance remains highly sensitive to semantically neutral prompt format choices that are not controlled by current benchmarks. In a large-scale study spanning seven MLLMs and five MC-VQAs datasets, we find frequent rank reversals even under order-invariant evaluation. These reversals arise when we systematically vary option ID sets, delimiters, and separators, yielding 48 semantically equivalent prompt formats. Mechanistic analyses trace this instability to low-level language modeling effects: tokenizer-induced fusion or removal of option ID tokens introduces corrupted option ID tokens into the input sequence, while the choice of option ID sets directly affects the reliability of attention patterns for option selection. Accordingly, MC-VQA rankings correlate weakly with open-ended evaluation, indicating that MC-VQA reflects option-selection dynamics in addition to multimodal reasoning. These findings identify prompt formatting as a major, previously under-controlled confounder in MC-VQA benchmarking and motivate evaluation protocols that explicitly control prompt format sensitivity.
Short-answer VQA benchmarks conflate two distinct quantities: whether a model's answer is semantically correct, and whether that answer matches the surface form expected by the automatic evaluator. We study this conflation across six vision--language models and six benchmarks, using a human-validated semantic judge (97.6% precision) to audit over 37k official errors. A second text-only judge reproduces the same benchmark-level false-negative pattern, showing that the effect is not an artifact of a single audit model. On text-rich benchmarks, up to half of these errors are semantically acceptable answers penalized purely for surface-form mismatch. This instability is structured by answer type: extractive and multi-span answers are far more evaluator-sensitive than scalar answers. Benign prompt and context rewrites further destabilize official outcomes, flipping item-level correctness at substantial rates without changing the underlying task. A deterministic CPU-only contract repair confirms that the undercount is partially recoverable. These findings imply that official short-answer VQA scores should be accompanied by semantic audits and answer-type diagnostics to remain interpretable.
Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.
Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding. Furthermore, the rapid proliferation of LLMs has created the implicit assumption that more sophisticated prompting techniques yield better performance. Several studies claim such gains, but report them under differing models, prompt wordings and answer-extraction rules, so the gains cannot be attributed to the technique alone. We address this gap with ReasonLab, an evaluation framework in which the prompting technique is a first-class experimental variable alongside the model and the dataset, and which retains every generation for inspection. Using ReasonLab we conduct a controlled study of 8 prompting techniques across 10 MCQA datasets, 27 model configurations and 480,927 evaluations at temperature 0. We find that the prompting technique is a minor determinant of accuracy: on configurations without a reasoning budget the reasoning triggers improve on direct prompting by only 3.92 to 4.69 pp and are indistinguishable from one another, and on configurations with reasoning enabled no technique differs by more than 0.51 pp. Self-Generate is the only technique with a consistent effect, a reduction of 2.95 pp. We further investigate three phenomena: (1) the comparison of models on a common set of datasets, where model size does not predict accuracy, (2) the trade-offs across thinking budgets, where enabling reasoning is worth up to 12.74 pp whereas an eightfold budget increase adds only 0.48 to 2.10 pp, and (3) the variation in dataset difficulty, with 60% of benchmarks below 70% accuracy and a 43.9 pp spread from easiest to hardest. These results suggest that, for MCQA, the prompting technique is a minor lever compared with enabling model reasoning, and that substantial headroom remains.