Personal photo albums are not merely collections of static images but living, ecological archives defined by temporal continuity, social entanglement, and rich metadata, which makes the personalized photo retrieval non-trivial. However, existing retrieval benchmarks rely heavily on context-isolated web snapshots, failing to capture the multi-source reasoning required to resolve authentic, intent-driven user queries. To bridge this gap, we introduce PhotoBench, the first benchmark constructed from authentic, personal albums. It is designed to shift the paradigm from visual matching to personalized multi-source intent-driven reasoning. Based on a rigorous multi-source profiling framework, which integrates visual semantics, spatial-temporal metadata, social identity, and temporal events for each image, we synthesize complex intent-driven queries rooted in users' life trajectories. Extensive evaluation on PhotoBench exposes two critical limitations: the modality gap, where unified embedding models collapse on non-visual constraints, and the source fusion paradox, where agentic systems perform poor tool orchestration. These findings indicate that the next frontier in personal multimodal retrieval lies beyond unified embeddings, necessitating robust agentic reasoning systems capable of precise constraint satisfaction and multi-source fusion. Our PhotoBench is available.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Query Dimensions
Image Dimensions
One-to-Many
Unmatched
Narrative
Personalized
Multi-Source
Reasoning
Volume
Personalized
Metadata
Temporal
Quality Var.
Near-dup.
Candidates
MSCOCO_t2i ( Lin et al., 2014 )
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
500K
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
123K
Flickr30k ( Plummer et al., 2015 )
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
16K
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
31K
Winoground ( Thrush et al., 2022 )
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
800
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
2
INQUIRE ( Vendrow et al., 2024 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
250
✗
✓
✓
✓
✓
5M
VisDial ( Das et al., 2017 )
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✓
1.2M
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
100
Table 1. We compare PhotoBench with existing vision-language or multimodal retrieval datasets, highlighting its unique characteristics for real-world personalized photo retrieval tasks. Quality Var. : Image Quality Variance ( e.g. , blur, noise); Near-dup. : Near-duplicate burst shots.
Figure 1. The illustration of the dataset construction pipeline for PhotoBench .
Figure 2. The query distribution w.r.t. ground-truth count (left) and source-aware taxonomy (right) in PhotoBench .
Chinese
English
Model
Size (B)
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
N@1
N@5
N@10
N@20
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@20
N@1
N@5
N@10
N@20
Multimodal Embedding Models
clip-ViT-B-32-multilingual-v1
0.14
1.2
4.1
6.1
8.8
3.2
4.0
4.7
5.5
10.7
25.5
33.1
41.3
24.5
25.6
27.9
30.3
siglip2-base-patch16-224
0.38
16.4
33.7
40.0
47.3
33.1
34.6
36.0
38.2
19.8
39.9
46.7
53.1
40.2
41.5
42.9
44.7
siglip2-giant-opt-patch16-256
1.88
20.8
40.5
47.6
54.5
42.0
42.4
44.1
46.0
23.8
45.1
50.7
56.9
47.5
48.1
48.8
50.5
VLM2Vec
8.29
23.1
44.4
52.4
60.0
46.0
47.0
48.9
51.3
22.0
43.3
51.1
58.1
43.0
44.9
46.9
49.1
Table 2. The retrieval performance on PhotoBench using top- k ranking metrics. We report Recall@K (R@K) and NDCG@K (N@K) averaged over all albums. Best result of each category is in bold, and the second best is underlined.
System
Normal Query
Zero-GT Query
P
R
F1
Rej-P
Rej-R
Rej-F1
Real-world Mobile Gallery Systems
Phone A
22.8
47.3
25.6
18.2
73.2
29.1
Phone B
16.0
17.2
14.4
12.4
80.5
21.5
Phone C
33.7
50.1
34.4
20.1
48.8
28.5
Phone D
34.9
47.7
34.5
25.5
79.7
38.6
Table 3. The retrieval performance on PhotoBench using set-based metrics. Best result of each category is in bold, while the second best is underlined. P , R , Rej-P , Rej-R and Rej-F1 denote Precision , Recall , F1 , Reject-Precision , Reject-Recall and Reject-F1 , respectively.
Type
Agent(A)
Multimodal(M)
Text(T)
Δ (A-M)
Δ (A-T)
SV
71.1
72.3
75.0
-1.2
-3.8
SM
57.9
7.2
7.9
+50.8
+50.1
SF
75.1
11.7
8.4
+63.4
+66.7
SVM
63.4
63.4
65.5
+0.0
-2.1
SVF
40.1
52.6
51.0
-12.4
-10.9
SMF
60.2
12.0
11.2
+48.2
+49.0
Table 4. Recall@10 performance decomposition by source-aware query types. Δ (A-M) and Δ (A-T) denote performance gaps between agents and multimodal and caption-based text embedding models, respectively.
Tools
SV
SM
SF
SVM
SVF
SMF
SVMF
TV
30.5
2.6
8.7
31.4
32.1
6.1
35.1
TV+TM
32.3
54.7
12.9
34.1
33.2
25.5
33.4
TV+TF
32.2
3.3
69.0
29.7
26.8
30.1
25.4
TV+TM+TF
36.9
69.7
90.1
44.7
30.1
76.8
32.5
Table 5. Tool ablation study on the best agentic system with Qwen3-235B-A22B. F1 scores are reported across query types as different types of tools are incrementally enabled. Note that the set composition tool ( TS ) is always active.
Type
Agent (Best)
Pho.A
Pho.B
Pho.C
Pho.D
Pho.E
Pho.F
SV
37.6
33.2
20.5
34.6
34.1
40.6
36.4
SM
72.3
39.8
17.9
67.5
52.6
75.1
76.7
SF
93.4
1.8
1.1
1.7
6.7
0.0
10.3
Avg.
63.5
28.8
15.0
40.4
31.7
45.2
46.3
SVM
45.7
20.0
10.9
31.7
32.2
38.3
40.4
SVF
30.9
15.1
7.2
22.7
25.9
20.8
22.2
Table 6. We report F1 scores of the best agent (Qwen3-235B-A22B) and mobile gallery systems as query complexity increases from single- to dual- and triple-source queries. Δ values indicate the performance degradation, exposing the Source Fusion Paradox in commercial engines.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3. Linguistic comparison with traditional benchmarks. We evaluate four dimensions: Avg Query Length (total tokens), Noun Density (proportion of entities), Avg Syntactic Depth (grammatical complexity), and Lexical Diversity (MTLD, measuring vocabulary richness independent of text length). PhotoBench queries are structurally streamlined (lower length and depth) yet lexically diverse, reflecting search-style rather than narrative-style language.
Album
# Images
Metadata (%)
Portrait (%)
Core Faces
Album 1
1,069
97.7
7.3
10
Album 2
1,466
75.7
43.5
2
Album 3
1,047
76.7
24.6
8
Total
3582
83.4
25.1
20
Appendix
Table 7. Per-album statistics. Albums vary in social density (Core Faces) and visual patterns (Portrait ratio), ensuring benchmark diversity.
Figure 4. Temporal distribution of photos across albums.
Dimension
Fact-based (Explicit)
Cognitive (Implicit)
Location
“in Shanghai”
“at home,” “at the gym”
Time
“in May 2024”
“during Spring Festival”
Person
“Zhang Wei”
“with my girlfriend”
Object
“a red car”
“the parking spot before the concert”
Concept
“sunset”
“cozy moments with family”
Appendix
Table 8. The Dual-Layer Taxonomy across five dimensions. Fact-based queries involve explicit signal matching; Cognitive queries require reasoning synthesis.
Figure 5. Supplementary query statistics. (a) Distribution of labels across semantic dimensions. (b) Distribution of Cognitive labels per query (0 indicates a pure Fact-based query).
Method Type
Fact
Cognitive
Gap
Best Embedding
35.24
63.76
-28.52
Best Agent
78.60
70.98
+7.62
Appendix
Table 9. Performance by reasoning depth (Recall@10). Embedding models show a negative gap (better on Cognitive), while agents show a slight positive gap.
Figure 6. Case study illustrating the Modality Gap and Source Fusion Paradox. ✓ =success, ~ =partial, ✗ =failure.
Figure 7. The proposed hierarchical agentic framework architecture for photo retrieval.
System
Normal Query
Zero-GT Query
P
R
F1
Rej-P
Rej-R
Rej-F1
Ours
67.3
70.2
63.3
50.8
53.3
52.0
ToolACE-2
38.3
54.7
39.0
15.1
35.0
21.1
Qwen3-8B
37.6
68.1
41.0
16.8
16.7
16.7
Qwen3-32B
39.6
66.3
41.4
16.7
25.8
20.3
DeepSeek-v3
38.5
66.2
40.7
11.8
10.0
10.8
Appendix
Table 11. Performance of our proposed agentic framework on PhotoBench . All values in %. “ P ", “ R ", “ Rej-P ", “ Rej-R " and “ Rej-F1 " denote Precision, Recall, F1, Reject-Precision, Reject-Recall and Reject-F1, respectively.
Image retrieval has traditionally been formulated as a point-wise matching problem, where each candidate image is scored in isolation. However, this atomic paradigm fails to capture the complexity of human search intent within personal photo collections, where users often seek compact visual stories bound by structural relations rather than isolated snapshots. To address this limitation, we introduce Image Bundle Composition (IBC), a novel paradigm that shifts the objective from ranking individual images to dynamically composing cohesive image bundles from a massive, unstructured photo pool. Since target bundles are not predefined, IBC presents a severe combinatorial explosion challenge and demands modeling non-decomposable joint relevance. To establish this paradigm, we construct IBCBench, the first IBC benchmark dataset containing 109,467 images and 667 verified queries, built via a semi-automated verification pipeline. Furthermore, we propose BundleWeaver, an agentic framework that reformulates IBC as query-conditioned incremental hyperedge discovery. By employing a Large Language Model to adaptively search for missing relational roles and utilizing a Vision-Language Model for whole-bundle verification, BundleWeaver effectively navigates the combinatorial space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while state-of-the-art embedding models and static decompose-and-rerank paradigms suffer from relational blindness, BundleWeaver achieves substantial performance gains, highlighting the necessity of shifting from atomic scoring to dynamic relational composition. Our dataset and code are available.
Rong Shan, Tianyi Xu, Congmin Zheng +9
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Innovation Institute · OPPO
As large language models increasingly power personal assistants, users expect them to reason over multimodal life histories, from recognizing people to understanding events to aggregating patterns, yet existing benchmarks primarily target concept-level recognition. We introduce Life-Bench, a fully synthetic, human-verified multimodal benchmark of over 11,800 question-answer pairs across 10 tasks, organized by required evidence scope: concept identification, event understanding, and aggregated reasoning. The benchmark's photo-centric personal histories are distributionally aligned with real user accounts under embedding statistic. The interconnected structure of personal data invites graph-based solutions; we propose LifeGraph, a personal knowledge graph framework providing structured retrieval with on-demand access to source visual evidence, showing particular promise on event and aggregated tasks. Systematic evaluation of four retrieval paradigms on Life-Bench demonstrates that accuracy degrades sharply with evidence scope, falling below 0.40 on aggregated tasks, and that no single paradigm dominates across categories. Performance beyond concept recognition remains modest for all evaluated methods, establishing personalization over multimodal histories as an open challenge and Life-Bench as a testbed for future progress.
Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have substantially expanded the capabilities of multimodal retrieval, enabling systems to align and retrieve information across visual and textual modalities. Yet, existing benchmarks largely focus on coarse-grained or single-condition alignment, overlooking real-world scenarios where user queries specify multiple interdependent constraints across modalities. To bridge this gap, we introduce MCMR (Multi-Conditional Multimodal Retrieval): a large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate fine-grained, multi-condition cross-modal retrieval under natural-language queries. MCMR spans five product domains: upper and bottom clothing, jewelry, shoes, and furniture. It also preserves rich long-form metadata essential for compositional matching. Each query integrates complementary visual and textual attributes, requiring models to jointly satisfy all specified conditions for relevance. We benchmark a diverse suite of MLLM-based multimodal retrievers and vision-language rerankers to assess their condition-aware reasoning abilities. Experimental results reveal: (i) distinct modality asymmetries across models; (ii) visual cues dominate early-rank precision, while textual metadata stabilizes long-tail ordering; and (iii) MLLM-based pointwise rerankers markedly improve fine-grained matching by explicitly verifying query-candidate consistency. Overall, MCMR establishes a challenging and diagnostic benchmark for advancing multimodal retrieval toward compositional, constraint-aware, and interpretable understanding. Our code and dataset is available at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/MCMR
Xuan Lu, Kangle Li, Haohang Huang +3
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Institute of Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo · Ningbo Key Laboratory of Spatial Intelligence and Digital Derivative +1