MultiHaystack: Benchmarking Multimodal Retrieval and Reasoning over 40K Images, Videos, and Documents
Authors: Dannong Xu, Zhongyu Yang, Jun Chen, Yingfang Yuan, Ming Hu, Lei Sun, Luc Van Gool, Danda Pani Paudel, +1 more
Organizations: INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” · Lanzhou University · King Abdullah University of Science and Technology · Heriot-Watt University · Monash University · University College Dublin
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on benchmarks that evaluate text, image, or video understanding separately. However, these settings do not assess a critical real-world requirement, which involves retrieving relevant evidence from large, heterogeneous multimodal corpora prior to reasoning. Most existing benchmarks restrict retrieval to small, single-modality candidate sets, substantially simplifying the search space and overstating end-to-end reliability. To address this gap, we introduce MultiHaystack, the first benchmark designed to evaluate both retrieval and reasoning under large-scale, cross-modal conditions. MultiHaystack comprises over 46,000 multimodal retrieval candidates across documents, images, and videos, along with 747 open yet verifiable questions. Each question is grounded in a unique validated evidence item within the retrieval pool, requiring evidence localization across modalities and fine-grained reasoning. In our study, we find that models perform competitively when provided with the corresponding evidence, but their performance drops sharply when required to retrieve that evidence from the full corpus. Additionally, even the strongest retriever, E5-V, achieves only 40.8% Recall@1, while state-of-the-art MLLMs such as GPT-5 experience a significant drop in reasoning accuracy from 80.86% when provided with the corresponding evidence to 51.4% under top-5 retrieval. These results indicate that multimodal retrieval over heterogeneous pools remains a primary bottleneck for MLLMs, positioning MultiHaystack as a valuable testbed that highlights underlying limitations obscured by small-scale evaluations and promotes retrieval-centric advances in multimodal systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison with existing visual question answering benchmarks. Existing benchmarks often suffer from three key limitations: ( i ) ambiguous evidence that leads to multiple possible answers, ( ii ) retrieval restricted to a single modality, and ( iii ) small candidate pools (often limited to a single image, document, or video). In contrast, MultiHaystack provides questions grounded in uniquely verifiable evidence over a large-scale multimodal corpus of 46K+ items spanning documents, images, and videos, requiring both modality selection and fine-grained reasoning.
Figure 2: Performance on MultiHaystack. “Gold in Top-1/5” directly provides answer-containing files; “Single-Modality” and “Cross-Modality” require retrieval within one or across multiple modalities.
Benchmark
Modality
Retrieval Candidates per QA
Data Types
Unique Evidence
Task Types
WebQA [ 4 ]
1–5
Web images
✓
1
RetVQA [ 35 ]
20–30
Natural images
✓
2
MM-NIAH [ 46 ]
10–70+
Mixed text-image
✗
3
MMNeedle [ 44 ]
10–160
Image patch
✓
1
DocHaystack [ 5 ]
100–1000
Document images
✓
2
MultiHaystack
46K+
Multimedia items
✓
6
Table 1: Comparison of Benchmarks. MultiHaystack is a large-scale multimodal benchmark with 46K+ items, supporting multimodal retrieval, unique evidence, and six task types, while prior benchmarks remain limited.
Figure 3: Examples of six tasks in MultiHaystack: Visual Parsing & Positioning (spatial layouts), Contextual Understanding (embedded text), Video Temporal Reasoning (motion/order), Statistical Reasoning (charts/tables), Metadata Identification (affiliations/timestamps), and Factual Knowledge Retrieval (corpus-grounded facts).
Figure 4: Benchmark construction pipeline. MultiHaystack is built in four stages: collecting diverse multimodal sources, generating specific QA pairs, filtering for unique and grounded answers, and enriching with data. This design ensures coverage across six tasks ( Fig. 3 ) and overcomes the unimodal, small-scale, or ambiguous limitations of prior benchmarks.
Model
Video
Image
Document
Overall
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
CLIP
26.67 (56.19)
40.00 (78.10)
51.43 (80.00)
21.71 (30.25)
31.64 (40.88)
34.87 (44.34)
34.93 (38.76)
46.89 (51.67)
48.80 (53.59)
26.10 (36.28)
37.08 (49.13)
41.10 (51.94)
SigLIP2
40.00 (63.81)
60.00 (83.81)
74.29 (91.43)
32.10 (44.11)
40.88 (53.12)
45.27 (58.66)
59.81 (61.72)
68.42 (70.33)
72.73 (75.12)
40.96 (51.81)
51.27 (62.25)
57.03 (67.87)
OpenCLIP
38.10 (60.00)
56.19 (74.29)
62.86 (78.10)
19.40 (25.40)
27.94 (35.80)
32.33 (42.26)
28.71 (32.06)
36.84 (42.58)
43.06 (47.85)
24.63 (32.13)
34.40 (43.11)
39.63 (48.86)
Jina-Clip-V1
21.90 (42.86)
38.10 (59.05)
47.62 (67.62)
7.39 (13.39)
10.16 (19.17)
12.93 (22.40)
16.75 (17.70)
21.05 (22.01)
22.49 (22.97)
12.05 (18.74)
17.14 (25.57)
20.48 (28.92)
Jina-Clip-V2
20.00 (36.19)
30.48 (56.19)
35.24 (76.19)
11.78 (27.25)
21.02 (42.73)
25.17 (48.04)
40.67 (41.63)
51.67 (52.63)
55.98 (56.46)
21.02 (32.53)
30.92 (47.39)
35.21 (54.35)
Table 2: Retrieval performance in cross-modality vs. single-modality settings. Cross-modality results are shown in black, while single-modality results are shown in gray for comparison. Best values per column are highlighted in bold.
Model
VPP
CU
VTR
FKR
SR
MI
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
CLIP
33.33
39.39
42.42
16.67
30.00
43.33
29.55
40.91
50.00
20.59
23.53
29.41
25.23
35.51
38.63
27.37
40.35
43.51
SigLIP2
42.42
66.67
72.73
53.33
66.67
80.00
29.55
52.27
65.91
26.47
32.35
47.06
38.01
45.48
50.47
46.32
56.49
60.00
OpenCLIP
36.36
51.52
54.55
30.00
46.67
50.00
38.64
61.36
70.45
17.65
20.59
20.59
22.74
31.78
37.69
23.51
31.58
36.49
Jina-Clip-V1
21.21
27.27
39.39
13.33
13.33
20.00
29.55
59.09
70.45
2.94
8.82
8.82
9.03
13.08
15.26
12.63
15.44
17.89
Jina-Clip-V2
33.33
42.42
48.48
10.00
16.67
23.33
11.36
20.45
25.00
11.76
20.59
23.53
17.13
28.35
31.78
27.72
36.84
41.75
Table 3: Retrieval results across six tasks. Recall@1/3/5 of different vision-language retrieval models on MultiHaystack across six distinct tasks.
Model
Video
Image
Document
Overall
Ola
14.29 (22.86)
20.09 (31.41)
36.36 (44.98)
23.83 (34.00)
InternVL-3
17.14 (20.95)
29.33 (38.80)
49.28 (51.67)
33.29 (39.89)
Qwen2-VL
16.19 (18.10)
16.86 (24.94)
19.62 (22.49)
17.54 (23.29)
Gemini-2.5-Flash
52.38 (61.90)
35.10 (44.57)
56.94 (58.37)
43.64 (50.87)
GPT-5
60.00 (67.62)
43.19 (52.66)
64.11 (70.81)
51.41 (59.84)
Table 4: Multimodal reasoning performance. Each model answers questions using top- 5 items retrieved by E5-V from cross-modality inputs; gray numbers show single-modality Recall@5 for reference.
Figure 5: Top- k ablation analysis for MLLMs integrated with E5-V.
Model
VPP
CU
VTR
FKR
SR
MI
Ola
27.27
30.00
18.18
20.59
26.17
21.40
InternVL-3
42.42
23.33
11.36
23.53
29.91
41.40
Qwen2-VL
18.18
23.33
6.82
14.71
18.38
17.89
Gemini-2.5-Flash
54.55
46.67
56.82
32.35
35.51
50.53
GPT-5
57.58
56.67
52.27
50.00
43.61
58.95
Table 5: Comparison of MLLMs’ reasoning performance integrated with E5-V across six tasks.
Figure 6: Comparison in three distinct modalities. (a) represents the video modality, (b) represents the image modality, and (c) represents the document modality.
Model
Cohen’s κ
95% CI
Accuracy
Pearson r
Ola
0.918
[0.710, 1.000]
0.967
0.921
InternVL-3
0.865
[0.667, 1.000]
0.933
0.873
Qwen2-VL
1.000
[1.000, 1.000]
1.000
1.000
Gemini-2.5-Flash
0.932
[0.772, 1.000]
0.967
0.934
GPT-5
1.000
[1.000, 1.000]
1.000
1.000
Table 6: Reliability Matrix for LLM-as-Judge
Figure 7: Pool-size controlled comparison. Recall of MM-Embed under single-modality retrieval and mixed-modality retrieval with an identical total pool size. Performance remains substantially lower in the mixed-modality condition, indicating that the cross-modal gap arises from modality heterogeneity rather than pool size.
Figure 8: Effect of data enrichment under varying candidate pool sizes, showing that recall consistently drops as the pool expands.
Figure 9: Error cases illustrating retrieval errors, including modality bias (retrieving images instead of video evidence) and semantic drift (violating temporal constraints), and reasoning errors, including visual numeracy (misreading numbers in charts) and layout-aware multi-step reasoning (failing to integrate structured cues across layouts).
Methods
Video
Image
Document
Overall
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
R@1
R@3
R@5
Single-Modality
E5-V
62.86
81.90
83.81
43.19
68.36
73.44
60.77
71.29
76.08
50.87
71.08
75.64
Cross-Modality
E5-V
34.29
51.43
60.95
33.49
55.20
62.82
59.33
70.33
75.12
40.83
58.90
66.00
E5-V + Refined Query
41.90
59.05
64.76
36.26
56.58
66.74
60.29
70.81
75.12
43.78
60.91
68.81
Table 7: Preliminary studies with advanced retrieval pipelines.
Appendix figures & tables36 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure A.1 : Video–Document Distribution Overview. Distributions of video duration (left) and document page count (right), with red dashed lines indicating means and green dashed lines indicating medians.
Figure B.1 : Video Example 1.
Figure B.2 : Video Example 2.
Figure B.3 : Video Example 3.
Figure B.4 : Image Example 1.
Figure B.5 : Image Example 2.
Figure B.6 : Image Example 3.
Figure B.7 : Document Example 1.
Figure B.8 : Document Example 2.
Figure B.9 : Document Example 3.
Figure B.10 : Data Enrichment Example 1.
Figure B.11 : Data Enrichment Example 2.
Figure B.12 : Data Enrichment Example 3.
Model
Overall
Ola
0.54
InternVL-3
0.80
Qwen2-VL
0.67
Gemini-2.5-Flash
1.07
GPT-5
4.28
Appendix
Table F.1 : VQA performance in zero context.
Figure F.1 : Distribution of cosine similarity scores.
Model
Video
Image
Document
Overall
InternVL-3.5
20.95 (26.67)
30.95 (39.72)
51.20 (54.55)
35.21 (42.03)
Qwen2.5-VL
19.05 (21.90)
22.17 (28.41)
31.10 (34.45)
24.23 (29.18)
Appendix
Table F.2 : VQA performance. Results are conditioned on top-5 cross-modal retrieval context. Baseline single-modality Recall@5 scores are indicated in gray .
Figure G.1 : Distribution of error types. Panels: (a) retrieval error distribution and (b) reasoning error distribution. Retrieval errors are quantified by Recall@5 with the strongest retriever (E5-V), while reasoning errors are evaluated using VQA with the strongest reasoning model (GPT-5). Retrieval errors dominate across tasks, though reasoning errors remain substantial.
Despite the strong capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), their parametric knowledge remains incomplete and difficult to update, motivating multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to ground responses in external text and images. However, existing benchmarks face two major limitations: (i) they typically emphasize single-hop retrieval or reasoning over a small set of provided contexts rather than open-domain evidence discovery; and (ii) they provide fragmented coverage of cross-modal reasoning paths, leaving complex multi-hop and multi-image reasoning underexplored. In this paper, we introduce CrossModalQA, an open-domain benchmark for evaluating multimodal retrieval and reasoning over heterogeneous corpora. CrossModalQA contains 1,863 question-answer pairs constructed from 4,987 Wikipedia articles and 4,431 Wikimedia Commons images. It covers five complementary reasoning paths: vision-to-text, text-to-vision, vision-to-text-to-vision, multi-image intersection, and image-set reasoning. Every question requires retrieving and composing distributed textual and visual evidence, with an average reasoning depth of 3.50 hops. We construct the benchmark through multimodal knowledge graph-guided subgraph sampling and apply rule-based consistency checking and LLM verification to ensure multimodal dependence and traceable evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that existing multimodal RAG systems struggle to recover complete evidence chains and can underperform closed-book models when incomplete retrieval introduces distracting context. Further analysis reveals that complete cross-modal retrieval contributes more to answer accuracy than generator scaling, while multi-image retrieval and reasoning remain the primary bottlenecks limiting end-to-end performance.
Jiacheng Cai, Zijin Hong, Zheng Yuan +3
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Jilin University
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently been applied to universal multimodal retrieval, where Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves candidate reranking. However, existing approaches remain largely language-driven, relying on static visual encodings and lacking the ability to actively verify fine-grained visual evidence, which often leads to speculative reasoning in visually ambiguous cases. We propose V-Retrver, an evidence-driven retrieval framework that reformulates multimodal retrieval as an agentic reasoning process grounded in visual inspection. V-Retrver enables an MLLM to selectively acquire visual evidence during reasoning via external visual tools, performing a multimodal interleaved reasoning process that alternates between hypothesis generation and targeted visual verification.To train such an evidence-gathering retrieval agent, we adopt a curriculum-based learning strategy combining supervised reasoning activation, rejection-based refinement, and reinforcement learning with an evidence-aligned objective. Experiments across multiple multimodal retrieval benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements in retrieval accuracy (with 23.0% improvements on average), perception-driven reasoning reliability, and generalization.
Dongyang Chen, Chaoyang Wang, Dezhao Su +6
Tsinghua University · University of Central Florida · Fudan University +4
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