Are Multimodal Large Language Models Good Annotators for Image Tagging?

Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) classification performance depends critically on evaluation protocol and ground truth quality. Studies comparing MLLMs with supervised and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) report conflicting conclusions, and we show these conflicts stem from protocols that either inflate or underestimate performance. Across the most common evaluation protocols, we identify and fix key issues: model outputs that fall outside the provided class list and are discarded, inflated results from weak multiple-choice distractors, and open-world setting that underperforms only due to poor output mapping. We additionally quantify the impact of commonly overlooked design choices - batch size, image ordering, and text encoder selection - showing they substantially affect accuracy. Evaluating on ReGT, our multilabel reannotation of 625 ImageNet-1k classes, reveals that MLLMs benefit most from corrected labels (up to +10.8%), substantially narrowing the perceived gap with supervised models. Much of the reported MLLM underperformance on classification is thus an artifact of noisy ground truth and flawed evaluation protocol rather than genuine model deficiency. Models less reliant on supervised training signals prove most sensitive to annotation quality. Finally, we show that MLLMs can assist human annotators: in a controlled case study, annotators confirmed or integrated MLLM predictions in approximately 50% of difficult cases, demonstrating their potential for large-scale dataset curation. This work is part of the Aiming for Perfect ImageNet-1k project, see https://klarajanouskova.github.io/ImageNet/.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are widely used for automated annotation, yet their per-class accuracy varies widely (e.g., 12%-98% across the 13 classes of three classroom sub-datasets) and is expensive to measure: evaluating one 27B MLLM on 5,416 validation images takes roughly 14 hours, whereas a frozen-CLIP pass over the same images completes in about 3 minutes. A low-cost signal for ranking classes by expected MLLM annotation difficulty a priori remains underexplored. Building on the AnchorProxy construct (per-class zero-shot CLIP accuracy) introduced in the companion study, this paper systematically evaluates its full-frame formulation, termed AnchorScore here, as an a priori diagnostic that flags the classes MLLMs are least likely to annotate reliably. On classroom behavior data (SCB5, 13 classes, 6 MLLMs), AnchorScore correlates with per-class MLLM accuracy (Spearman rho = 0.769, p = 0.002, n = 13). None of the alternative difficulty predictors (DINOv2, ResNet-50, SigLIP, or MLLM self-verbalized uncertainty) showed a significant class-level correlation at n = 13. A cross-model consensus control suggests AnchorScore primarily captures a shared class-difficulty factor rather than a CLIP-specific signal. An independent replication on Stanford40 Actions yields a nearly identical effect (rho = 0.817, p < 0.001); the association is strongest on activity-recognition data and attenuates on medical and satellite imagery. Three practical applications follow: a deployable hybrid CLIP/MLLM routing strategy (predicted-class routing: up to +23 pp over CLIP-only at roughly 44% fewer MLLM calls), prompt disambiguation on hard classes (exploratory), and review-priority prediction for human verification. AnchorScore does not estimate exact MLLM accuracy; it provides a low-cost ranking signal that directs expensive MLLM evaluation to the classes where it is most informative.

Human Label Variation (HLV), i.e. systematic differences among annotators' judgments, remains underexplored in benchmarks despite rapid progress in large language model (LLM) development. We address this gap by introducing an evaluation protocol for multimodal large language model (MLLM) benchmarking that explicitly accounts for two conditions: (1) human label agreement and (2) disagreement. We apply this protocol to two state-of-the-art MLLM families (Gemma 3, Qwen 2.5 VL) using non-aggregated human annotations from a social media content classification dataset. Across tasks, we find that larger models tend to perform best on high-agreement subsets, yet often underperform medium-sized models when human disagreement is high, indicating that parameter count alone does not determine sensitivity to ambiguity and subjectivity. These results show that benchmarks based solely on consensus labels can overstate model capabilities in such domains and that incorporating human label variation yields more realistic and robust assessments of MLLMs in content moderation pipelines.