Organizations: National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University, Suzhou, China · AMAP, Alibaba Group · School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Systematically evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) is essential for advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Yet existing benchmarks remain inadequate for rigorously measuring their reasoning capabilities under multi-criteria constraints. To address this gap, we introduce MapTab, a multimodal benchmark designed to assess holistic multi-criteria reasoning in MLLMs through route-planning tasks. MapTab requires models to perceive and ground visual information from map images while integrating route attributes, such as Time and Price, from structured tables. It covers two scenarios: Metromap, spanning metro networks in 160 cities across 52 countries, and Travelmap, featuring 168 representative tourist attractions from 19 countries. Overall, MapTab includes 328 images, 196,800 route-planning queries, and 3,936 QA queries, incorporating four key criteria: Time, Price, Comfort, and Reliability. Extensive evaluations of 21 representative MLLMs show that current models still struggle with multicriteria multimodal reasoning. Notably, when visual perception is unreliable, multimodal reasoning can even underperform unimodal approaches. MapTab therefore offers a challenging and realistic testbed for systematically evaluating and advancing MLLMs across core perception, integration, numerical comparison, and route planning capabilities.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Schematic overview of the MapTab construction pipeline, comprising 5 main steps: Image Collection & Preprocessing, Tabular Construction, Quality Control, Query Generation, and Label Annotation.
Capability
Definition
Metromap Problems
Travelmap Problems
Visual Perception
Identifying lines, stations, locations, and topological structures from map images.
M-GP, M-LP, M-SR
M-GP, M-LP, M-SR
Table Understanding
Retrieving and interpreting information and attributes from Vertex and Edge tables.
E-GP, E-LP, E-SR, V-GP, V-LP, V-SR
E-GP, E-LP, E-SR, V-GP, V-LP, V-SR
Cross-modal Alignment
Matching information across maps and tables and checking whether they are consistent.
MM-GP, MM-LP, MM-SR
MM-GP, MM-LP, MM-SR
Graph Topology Reasoning
Reasoning about graph structures, adjacency, connectivity, routes, and transfer relationships.
M-LP, E-SR, MM-SR
M-SR, E-SR
Spatial Localization
Determining locations, line membership, same-line relationships, and relative positions.
M-SR, V-LP, V-SR
M-LP, V-SR
Numerical Reasoning
Performing counting, comparison, aggregation, averaging, and other numerical operations.
M-GP, M-LP, E-GP, E-SR, V-GP, V-LP, MM-GP, MM-LP
M-GP, E-GP, V-GP, V-LP, MM-SR
Table 1: Capability taxonomy and corresponding problem types in the proposed MapTab benchmark. Each problem may involve multiple capabilities. M, E, V, and MM denote Map, Edge_tab, Vertex_tab, and Map+Mix_tab, respectively.
Model
Type
Metromap
Travelmap
Map-only
Map+Mix_tab
Map-only
Map+Mix_tab
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
Human
–
85.1
–
–
62.2
–
–
91.7
–
–
72.8
–
–
Open-source Models
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
No-Thinking
2.75
17.58
103
4.69
21.87
182
19.29
42.50
1040
15.65
40.97
804
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Thinking
5.12
20.99
188
6.38
22.93
270
22.62
45.94
4511
12.74
38.10
653
Table 2: Evaluation results of various Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on the MapTab route-planning task under the Metromap and Travelmap scenarios. EMA, PMA, and DS denote Exact Match Accuracy, Partial Match Accuracy, and Difficulty-aware Score, respectively. Map-only uses only the map image, while Map+Mix_tab uses the map image together with Mix_tab. Bold values indicate the best performance within the open-source and closed-source model groups, respectively.
Model
Type
Metromap
Travelmap
VP
TU
CA
GT
SL
NR
PP
GR
VP
TU
CA
GT
SL
NR
PP
GR
Open-source Models
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
No-Thinking
48.5
54.4
20.6
21.3
70.6
29.4
30.6
19.7
40.1
52.2
53.4
49.1
60.7
25.7
43.3
72.9
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Thinking
44.2
78.0
17.5
40.2
75.6
46.1
22.5
21.6
54.2
87.9
48.6
46.1
85.4
68.1
40.9
66.1
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
No-Thinking
25.4
32.7
11.7
11.7
46.3
8.2
17.5
13.4
27.0
41.9
45.4
37.2
48.5
14.1
45.6
66.1
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
No-Thinking
43.5
53.0
20.0
19.6
71.5
27.7
29.4
17.2
41.5
61.6
39.5
50.9
72.6
32.7
44.1
51.2
Table 3: Capability-level performance of different MLLMs on the MapTab benchmark. Each score is the arithmetic mean accuracy over all problems associated with the corresponding capability. VP, TU, CA, GT, SL, NR, PP, and GR denote Visual Perception, Table Understanding, Cross-modal Alignment, Graph Topology Reasoning, Spatial Localization, Numerical Reasoning, Path Planning, and Global Reasoning, respectively. Bold values indicate the best performance within the open-source and closed-source model groups, respectively.
Criteria Settings
FR
PR
NR
All
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
T
P
C
R
Metromap
Time-Only
26.59
46.75
1.92
16.36
1.80
21.34
19.81
39.47
0.00
2.44
2.88
9.69
Price-Only
30.91
51.05
0.00
13.87
3.31
25.94
22.06
42.40
0.00
1.19
4.06
10.44
Comfort_Level-Only
25.31
46.24
0.00
16.20
2.56
23.81
18.25
38.97
0.00
2.44
4.88
10.19
Reliability-Only
25.73
45.57
0.00
13.84
3.59
27.69
19.38
39.53
0.00
1.19
4.06
10.44
Table 4: Ablation studies of route repetition and criteria understanding in the Metromap and Travelmap scenarios. Query types are categorized into Fully Repeat (FR), Partially Repeat (PR), and Not Repeat (NR), according to the deviation between the original shortest paths and the optimal paths after introducing different criteria. Under All, EMA and PMA report the overall route planning performance, while T, P, C, and R denote the understanding accuracy of Total Time, Total Price, Average Comfort Level, and Average Reliability, respectively.
Error Type
Count
Error (%)
Overall (%)
Perception
267
20.7
16.7
Transfer Indeterminate
109
8.4
6.8
Path Search
460
35.6
28.8
Topology Extraction
491
38.0
30.7
Output Format
34
2.6
2.1
Table Lookup
39
3.0
2.4
Table 5: Distribution of different error types of Qwen3-VL-8B on MetroMap. Error (%) denotes the percentage among all error cases, while Overall (%) denotes the percentage among the entire evaluation set. Multiple error labels may be assigned to the same prediction; therefore, percentages across categories do not sum to 100%.
Focus on navigation, agent planning, or embodied execution, often with external tools.
MapTab (Ours)
Map + Table
✓
✓
✓
×
Large
The first benchmark that evaluates native multimodal route planning over map images and structured tables under explicit multi-criteria constraints, requiring models to solve the task without external tools or tool-use assumptions.
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of MapTab with existing multimodal reasoning and planning benchmarks. G+T , RP , and MC denote Graph+Table, Route Planning, and Multi-Criteria, respectively.
Model
Type
Map-only
E_tab-only
Map+E_tab
Map+E_tab+V_tab
Map+Mix_tab
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
Scenario: Metromap
Open-source Models
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
No-Thinking
2.75
17.58
103
25.69
46.44
1153
21.25
41.30
921
19.31
39.31
855
4.69
21.87
182
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Thinking
5.12
20.99
188
31.69
49.76
1427
38.00
57.06
1771
23.75
41.69
1080
6.38
22.93
270
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
No-Thinking
0.94
15.14
35
9.88
27.61
437
6.63
23.85
282
7.00
26.91
325
2.00
17.82
78
Appendix
Table 7: Evaluation results of various Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on the MapTab route planning task under the Metromap and Travelmap scenarios. EMA, PMA, and DS denote Exact Match Accuracy, Partial Match Accuracy, and Difficulty-aware Score, respectively. Map-only: map information only; Edge_tab-only: edge data only; Map+Edge_tab: map and edge data; Map+Edge_tab+Vertex_tab: map, edge, and vertex data; Map+Mix_tab: map and Mix_tab. We did not include Edge_tab+Vertex_tab because the comparison between it and Map+Mix_tab yielded conclusions consistent with those from the Map-only and Edge_tab-only control groups, without new findings. Bold values represent the best performance within open-source and closed-source groups, respectively.
Model
Type
Map
Edge_tab
Vertex_tab
Map+Mix_tab
GP
LP
SR
GP
LP
SR
GP
LP
SR
GP
LP
SR
Scenario: Metromap
Open-source Models
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
No-Thinking
55.00
17.50
73.12
22.50
100.0
7.50
57.50
51.88
86.88
0.63
22.50
38.75
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Thinking
53.12
28.12
51.25
56.87
99.38
56.87
79.37
77.50
98.12
7.50
9.38
35.63
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
No-Thinking
8.13
5.00
63.12
3.75
87.50
3.12
26.25
11.25
64.38
0.00
8.13
26.87
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of QA tasks across multiple MLLMs in the Metromap and Travelmap scenarios. In the Metromap scenario, the Mix_tab paired with the Map input has the Line column removed to prevent excessive table information from affecting the evaluation of map-table coordination. Task types are categorized into three classes: Global Perception-based Reasoning Tasks (GP), Local Perception-based Reasoning Tasks (LP), and Spatial Relationship Judgment Tasks (SR). Bold values in the table indicate the best performance among open-source and closed-source models, respectively.
Figure 3: Impact of Image Resolution on RP and QA Tasks in Metromap and Travelmap Scenarios. Images are proportionally downsampled to 1/2 , 1/4 , 1/8 , 1/16 , and 1/32 of the original resolution. For RP task, evaluation is conducted under 4 Map-based input settings: Map-Only (M), Map+Edge_tab (M+E_tab), Map+Edge_tab+Vertex_tab (M+E_tab+V_tab), and Map+Mix_tab (M+M_tab). For QA task, evaluation is conducted under 6 Map-based input settings: Map-GP (M-GP), Map-LP (M-LP), Map-SR (M-SR), Map+Mix_tab-GP (M+M-GP), Map+Mix_tab-LP (M+M-LP), and Map+Mix_tab-SR (M+M-SR).
Figure 4: Distribution of model accuracy across Map Difficulty and Query Difficulty under different input modalities (Metromap and Travelmap scenarios).
Figure 5: Model accuracy matrix under different combinations of Map Difficulty and Query Difficulty. The first row shows results in the Metromap scenario, while the second row corresponds to the Travelmap scenario. M denotes Map Only; E denotes Edge_Tab Only; M+E denotes Map + Edge_Tab; M+E+V denotes Map + Edge_Tab + Vertex_Tab; and M+M denotes Map + Mix_tab.
Token Statistics
Map+E_tab+V_tab
Map+M_tab
Input format
E_tab
V_tab
M_tab
EMA
PMA
DS
EMA
PMA
DS
Metromap
csv
2651
2264
2496
19.75
40.16
876
6.31
24.48
255
json
6465
6193
6397
19.31
39.31
855
4.69
21.87
182
Travelmap
csv
577
462
462
33.39
55.10
1929
15.42
40.83
800
Appendix
Table 9: Token counts under CSV and JSON table formats and their performance comparison on RP queries.
Input format
E-GP
E-LP
E-SR
V-GP
V-LP
V-SR
M+M-GP
M+M-LP
M+M-SR
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
(Acc)
Metromap
csv
20.00
100
3.12
47.50
58.75
78.75
1.25
21.25
70.00
json
22.50
100
7.50
57.50
51.88
86.88
0.63
22.50
38.75
Travelmap
csv
19.64
99.40
44.05
25.00
47.02
54.17
76.19
72.02
16.07
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison of CSV and JSON table formats on QA queries.
Model and Criteria Settings
Chinese-Chinese
English-English
Others-Others
Others-Chinese
Others-English
English-Others
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
EMA
PMA
Qwen3-map
12.10
31.65
6.03
22.85
2.64
19.47
18.31
38.81
17.86
43.18
0
13.17
Qwen3-map+e_tab
30.78
47.77
31.03
56.41
29.92
53.61
41.36
60.79
57.14
71.25
4.17
33.70
Qwen3-map+e_tab+v_tab
26.29
44.86
32.76
52.13
23.80
48.53
31.36
54.22
60.71
76.29
4.17
29.93
Qwen3-map+m_tab
10.59
31.30
7.76
27.07
5.12
26.07
15.25
39.19
17.86
48.41
0
18.23
GPT4o-map
11.42
31.23
15.52
34.51
8.26
33.63
15.42
39.05
28.57
59.34
12.50
37.30
Appendix
Table 11: Experimental performance results under different language distributions in the Metromap and Travelmap scenarios.
Figure 6: All images have the exact same height. Widths are adjusted automatically.
Error Type
Diagnostic Criterion
Capability Gap
Perception
The model fails to correctly recognize, localize, or associate task-critical visual entities (e.g., source and destination stations), resulting in incorrect inputs for subsequent route reasoning.
Visual Perception; Cross-modal Alignment
Transfer Indeterminate
The predicted transfer annotations are inconsistent with the actual line-switching status along the route.
Graph Topology Reasoning
Path Search
The model correctly identifies the optimization objective but fails to search for the optimal route, resulting in a path that deviates from the ground-truth solution.
Path Planning; Global Reasoning; Numerical Reasoning
Topology Extraction
The recognized stations are correct, but the predicted route contains invalid graph connections or violates the underlying map topology.
Graph Topology Reasoning; Spatial Localization
Output Format
The final response violates the required output specification, either because the model misunderstands the output requirements or because excessive reasoning prevents a valid final response.
Global Reasoning
Table Lookup
The model fails to correctly interpret or retrieve the required information from mix_tab , leading to an incorrect understanding of the tabular content.
Table Understanding
Appendix
Table 12: Diagnostic criteria and corresponding capability gaps for different error types. The capability taxonomy includes Visual Perception, Table Understanding, Cross-modal Alignment, Graph Topology Reasoning, Spatial Localization, Numerical Reasoning, Path Planning, and Global Reasoning.
Figure 7: Error Case 1: Perception Error
Figure 8: Error Case 2: Transfer Indeterminate Error
Figure 9: Error Case 3: Path Search Error
Figure 10: Error Case 4: Topology Extraction Error
Large language models (LLMs) with advanced cognitive capabilities are emerging as agents for various reasoning and planning tasks. Traditional evaluations often focus on specific reasoning or planning questions within controlled environments. Recent studies have explored travel planning as a medium to integrate various verbal reasoning tasks into real-world contexts. However, reasoning tasks extend beyond verbal reasoning alone, and a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs requires a testbed that incorporates tasks from multiple cognitive domains. To address this gap, we introduce ItinBench, a benchmark that features one task of spatial reasoning, i.e., route optimization, into trip itinerary planning while keeping the traditional verbal reasoning tasks. ItinBench evaluates various LLMs across diverse tasks simultaneously, including Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral Large, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and GPT family. Our findings reveal that LLMs struggle to maintain high and consistent performance when concurrently handling multiple cognitive dimensions. By incorporating tasks from distinct human-level cognitive domains, ItinBench provides new insights into building more comprehensive reasoning testbeds that better reflect real-world challenges. The code and dataset: https://ethanwtl.github.io/IBweb/
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have heterogeneous strengths across OCR, chart understanding, spatial reasoning, visual question answering, cost, and latency. Effective MLLM routing therefore requires more than estimating query difficulty: a router must match the multimodal requirements of the current image-question input with the capabilities of each candidate model. We propose LatentRouter, a router that formulates MLLM routing as counterfactual multimodal utility prediction. Given an image-question query, LatentRouter extracts learned multimodal routing capsules, represents each candidate MLLM with a model capability token, and performs latent communication between these states to estimate how each model would perform if selected. A distributional outcome head predicts model-specific counterfactual quality, while a bounded capsule correction refines close decisions without allowing residual signals to dominate the prediction. The resulting utility-based policy supports performance-oriented and performance-cost routing, and handles changing candidate pools through shared per-model scoring with availability masking. Experiments on MMR-Bench and VL-RouterBench show that LatentRouter outperforms fixed-model, feature-level, and learned-router baselines. Additional analyses show that the gains are strongest on multimodal task groups where model choice depends on visual, layout-sensitive, or reasoning-oriented requirements, and that latent communication is the main contributor to the improvement. The code is available at: https://github.com/LabRAI/LatentRouter.
Xueqi Cheng, Yushun Dong
Department of Computer Science Florida State University University
Recent progress in the reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has empowered them to address more complex tasks such as scientific analysis and mathematical reasoning. Despite their promise, MLLMs' reasoning abilities across different scenarios in real life remain largely unexplored and lack standardized benchmarks for evaluation. To address this gap, we introduce MMR-Life, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the diverse multimodal multi-image reasoning capabilities of MLLMs across real-life scenarios. MMR-Life consists of 2,646 multiple-choice questions based on 19,108 images primarily sourced from real-world contexts, comprehensively covering seven reasoning types: abductive, analogical, causal, deductive, inductive, spatial, and temporal. Unlike existing reasoning benchmarks, MMR-Life does not rely on domain-specific expertise but instead requires models to integrate information across multiple images and apply diverse reasoning abilities. The evaluation of 37 advanced models highlights the substantial challenge posed by MMR-Life. Even top models like GPT-5 achieve only 58% accuracy and display considerable variance in performance across reasoning types. Moreover, we analyze the reasoning paradigms of existing MLLMs, exploring how factors such as thinking length, reasoning method, and reasoning type affect their performance. In summary, MMR-Life establishes a comprehensive foundation for evaluating, analyzing, and improving the next generation of multimodal reasoning systems.
Jiachun Li, Shaoping Huang, Zhuoran Jin +5
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · The Key Laboratory of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences