Organizations: University of Waterloo, Canada · University of Sydney, Australia · Singapore Management University, Singapore · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · Hunan University, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia · City University of Hong Kong, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China · City University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Research Institute, China
The manufacturing sector is increasingly adopting Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to transition from simple perception to autonomous execution, yet current evaluations fail to reflect the rigorous demands of real-world manufacturing environments. Progress is hindered by data scarcity and a lack of fine-grained domain semantics in existing datasets. To bridge this gap, we introduce FORGE. Wefirst construct a high-quality multimodal dataset that combines real-world 2D images and 3D point clouds, annotated with fine-grained domain semantics (e.g., exact model numbers). We then evaluate 18 state-of-the-art MLLMs across three manufacturing tasks, namely workpiece verification, structural surface inspection, and assembly verification, revealing significant performance gaps. Counter to conventional understanding, the bottleneck analysis shows that visual grounding is not the primary limiting factor. Instead, insufficient domain-specific knowledge is the key bottleneck, setting a clear direction for future research. Beyond evaluation, we show that our structured annotations can serve as an actionable training resource: supervised fine-tuning of a compact 3B-parameter model on our data yields up to 90.8% relative improvement in accuracy on held-out manufacturing scenarios, providing preliminary evidence for a practical pathway toward domain-adapted manufacturing MLLMs. The code and datasets are available at https://ai4manufacturing.github.io/forge-web.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Benchmark Overview. (a) The main pipeline of FORGE . (b) Compared to previous benchmarks, FORGE primarily evaluates the understanding, reasoning, and decision-making capabilities regarding fine-grained domain semantics in manufacturing scenarios. (c) The performance of all models across all given tasks. From left to right: open-source models and closed-source models.
Benchmarks
Data Modality
Data Source
Granularity †
Statistics
Image
Point cloud
Real / Synthetic
Scenario
Workpiece
Model number
Availability
Samples
MMAD ( Jiang et al., 2024 )
✓
✗
Real-world
✓
✓
✗
✓
39,672
MME-Industry ( Yi et al., 2025 )
✓
✗
Real-world
✗
✗
✗
✓
1,050
DesignQA ( Doris et al., 2025 )
✗
✗
Synthetic
✓
✗
✗
✗
1,451
FailureSensorIQ ( Constantinides et al., 2025 )
✗
✗
Real-world
✓
✗
✗
✓
8,296
EngDesign ( Guo et al., 2025 )
✗
✗
Synthetic
✓
✗
✗
✓
1,717
Table 1: Comparison of existing manufacturing MLLMs benchmarks with FORGE .
Figure 2: Task descriptions, input data, and dialogue examples of FORGE .
Figure 3: Qualitative results and analysis. (a) WorkVeri : The top row shows examples of CHS scenario , the second rows are from Nuts scenario , and the bottom row is from PCs scenario . (b) SurfInsp : Randomly selected defect examples across different workpieces. (c) AssyVeri : The first three rows correspond to MES scenario , PES scenario , and CNC scenario , respectively, while the last row shows examples of SWN scenario .
Open-Source / Weights Models
Closed-Source Models
Provider
Model
Provider
Model
Google
Gemma-3-27B
OpenAI
GPT-5 / 5.2
OpenGVLab
InternVL3-78B
OpenAI
GPT-5-Mini
Meta
Llama-4-Maverick
OpenAI
O3
Mistral
Mi(ni)stral-3-8B/14B/Large
Google
Gemini-2.5/3-Flash
Alibaba
Qwen3-VL-8B/235B
Anthropic
Claude-4.5-Opus
Table 2: List of evaluated open-source and closed-source MLLMs.
Task
Mod.
Setting
Open-source Models
Closed-source Models
Random
Gemma-3-27B
InternVL3-78B
Llama-4-MAV
Mistral-3-14B
Mistral-3-8B
Mistral-3-Large
Qwen3-VL-235B
Qwen3-VL-8B
Kimi-K2.5
GLM-4.6V
Claude-4.5-Opus
Gemini-2.5-Flash
Gemini-3-Flash
GPT-5.2
GPT-5
GPT-5 Mini
O3
Seed-1.6
WorkVeri
3V
Zero Shot
27.62
32.59
36.36
32.46
30.97
34.78
52.36
42.01
50.00
47.42
39.19
56.05
69.56
61.29
61.05
37.98
58.22
54.44
25.0
Ref-Cond
23.59
24.90
20.36
25.00
18.26
20.93
35.67
27.20
36.76
44.29
27.88
43.55
65.25
28.34
30.02
33.94
29.55
26.87
25.0
ICD
28.83
30.16
35.69
28.54
28.86
37.53
37.86
26.32
60.56
44.90
55.04
53.85
67.34
61.69
56.68
30.71
57.91
46.45
25.0
Image
Zero Shot
25.94
32.59
38.80
33.56
30.61
25.78
64.08
35.41
66.75
50.44
59.42
55.78
72.22
72.50
74.72
73.78
76.18
67.04
25.0
Ref-Cond
30.51
53.88
40.65
20.22
24.28
25.50
58.01
24.04
69.67
50.33
56.22
51.66
76.27
55.48
64.22
72.73
68.32
49.66
25.0
Table 3: Main benchmark results (accuracy %) across three manufacturing tasks. Bold orange / underlined blue / light purple indicate best / second / third within each model category (open- or closed-source) per row. Rand. = weighted random-guess baseline.
Figure 4: Performance of Open-Source vs. Closed-Source models.
Figure 5: Two error cases of AssyVeri .
Model
Type
Single-Image
Cross-Image
C → L
L → C
Avg.
L → L
C → C
Avg.
Gemini-3-Flash
Closed
98.2
99.6
98.9
88.7
79.9
84.3
GPT-5.2
Closed
74.6
97.6
86.1
85.6
75.4
80.5
Qwen3-VL-235B
Open
85.4
98.8
92.1
80.3
72.2
76.3
Seed 1.6
Closed
42.0
99.2
70.6
79.3
71.2
75.2
Mistral-3-8B
Open
66.0
70.6
68.3
62.0
33.9
48.0
Table 4: Visual grounding Bottleneck Analysis results (accuracy %). Single-image : coordinate-to-letter (C → L) and letter-to-coordinate (L → C) on 500 cases. Cross-image : letter-to-letter (L → L) and coordinate-to-coordinate (C → C) on 513 pairs.
Table 10
Figure 6: Domain-specific SFT on held-out scenarios (zero-shot acc. %).
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Case
Mod.
Setting
Open-source Models
Closed-source Models
Gemma-3-27B
InternVL3-78B
Llama-4-MAV
Mistral-3-14B
Mistral-3-8B
Mistral-3-Large
Qwen3-VL-235B
Qwen3-VL-8B
Kimi-K2.5
GLM-4.6V
Claude-4.5-Opus
Gemini-2.5-Flash
Gemini-3-Flash
GPT-5.2
GPT-5
GPT-5 Mini
O3
Seed-1.6
WorkVeri
Model No
Image
Zero-Shot
23.18
27.04
24.55
25.78
20.09
24.46
36.91
21.12
30.41
41.84
30.04
33.48
46.78
48.03
51.93
53.88
55.70
38.96
Ref-Cond
25.97
30.47
21.33
18.61
23.81
19.40
33.64
25.54
37.04
27.90
34.33
30.04
55.79
32.86
40.52
49.36
45.66
27.07
ICD
18.03
41.56
31.28
24.24
26.84
24.03
35.34
22.41
38.76
29.00
30.90
31.33
65.67
60.87
71.43
61.90
66.51
44.21
3V
Zero-Shot
22.87
20.18
29.15
27.35
26.24
27.91
37.79
33.33
35.00
37.50
30.49
39.01
51.12
43.50
40.09
31.39
44.09
40.81
Ref-Cond
20.18
21.17
19.28
30.94
19.73
20.36
30.05
25.69
22.64
28.96
29.60
31.39
49.10
22.07
25.91
27.35
26.82
22.87
Appendix
Table 7: Performance of different cases for WorkVeri and AssyVeri , different workpieces, and different model numbers. Bold orange / underlined blue / light purple indicate best / second / third within each model category (open- or closed-source) per row.
Case
Method
Open-Source
Closed-Source
Gemma-3-27B
InternVL3-78B
Llama-4-MAV
Mistral-3-14B
Mistral-3-8B
Mistral-3-Large
Qwen3-VL-235B
Qwen3-VL-8B
Kimi-K2.5
GLM-4.6V
Claude-4.5-Opus
Gemini-2.5-Flash
Gemini-3-Flash
GPT-5.2
GPT-5
GPT-5 Mini
O3
Seed-1.6
CRACK
Zero-Shot
31.58
6.32
24.21
56.84
44.21
4.21
4.35
22.11
21.05
53.68
16.84
1.05
7.37
5.26
0.00
5.26
5.26
42.55
Ref-Cond
15.79
4.21
13.68
60.64
60.00
9.47
8.14
27.37
14.74
44.21
11.58
1.05
34.74
5.26
3.16
2.11
7.37
46.32
ICD
37.89
9.47
44.21
59.78
69.47
10.64
21.79
41.49
40.00
51.58
57.45
47.37
62.11
20.00
10.53
14.74
25.26
56.38
CUT
Zero-Shot
3.37
1.14
5.62
15.73
4.49
0.00
25.58
12.50
12.36
2.25
5.62
4.49
7.87
30.68
22.47
28.09
14.61
4.49
Ref-Cond
1.12
4.49
5.62
16.85
2.25
1.12
19.05
11.24
11.24
2.25
6.74
4.49
17.98
32.58
29.21
47.19
20.45
7.87
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of 4 anomaly cases for SurfInsp , different workpieces, and different model numbers. Bold orange / underlined blue / light purple indicate best / second / third within each model category (open- or closed-source) per row.
Workpieces
Model Number
No. of Samples
Corner Bracket
5
25
Countersunk Screw
2
20
Cup Head Screw
22
110
Eye Bolt
5
45
Flat Washer
9
45
Hex Nut
4
33
Appendix
Table 9: Simple data summary of raw point cloud data. The dataset contains 14 workpieces.
Workpiece
Wrong types
No. of samples
MES scenario
No Spring Washers
56
Hex Nut M14
52
Flat Washer M14
51
No Flat Washers
50
Two Flat Washers
50
Two Spring Washers
49
Appendix
Table 10: Simple data summary of raw image data (scenario-level).
Task
Scenario
Case Type
Error Type
Samples
WorkVeri
CHS scenario
Model No
M16 longer length 100
42
M18 longer length 100
35
M12 shorter length 50
34
M10 shorter length 50
32
Workpiece
Self tapping Screw
37
T Bolt Half thread Screw
44
Appendix
Table 11: Simple data summary of three tasks (scenario-level).
Model
Type
WorkVeri 3V ( Nuts scenario )
AssyVeri Img ( CNC scenario )
Gemini 3 Flash
Closed
63.6
53.5
GPT-5.2
Closed
62.6
37.0
Seed 1.6
Closed
60.0
23.6
Qwen3-VL-235B
Open
54.4
19.7
Mistral 3 8B
Open
35.4
26.0
Qwen2.5-VL-3B (base)
Open
28.2
24.0
Appendix
Table 12: Finetuned 3B model vs. frontier models on held-out scenarios (zero-shot accuracy %). The finetuned Qwen2.5-VL-3B nearly matches Qwen3-VL-235B on WorkVeri (53.8% vs. 54.4%) and surpasses Seed 1.6, Qwen3-VL-235B, and Mistral 3 8B on AssyVeri . Bold / Underlined / Shaded = best/2nd/3rd among the five reference models.
Figure 7: Two error cases with red annotations added for clearer interpretation.
Figure 8: Random examples from PCs scenario
Figure 9: Random examples from CHS scenario
Figure 10: Random examples from Nuts scenario
Figure 11: Random examples from Corner Bracket
Figure 12: Random examples from Countersunk Screw
Figure 13: Random examples from Cup Head Screw
Figure 14: Random examples from Eye Bolt
Figure 15: Random examples from Flat Washer
Figure 16: Random examples from Hex Nut
Figure 17: Random examples from Rivet Nut
Figure 18: Random examples from Self-tapping Screw
Figure 19: Random examples from Spring Washer
Figure 20: Random examples from T Bolt Half thread Screw
Figure 21: Random examples from T Nut
Figure 22: Random examples from T Screw
Figure 23: Random examples from Wing Nut
Figure 24: Random examples from Wing Screw
Figure 25: Random examples from MES scenario
Figure 26: Random examples from PES scenario
Figure 27: Random examples from CNC scenario
Figure 28: Random examples from SWN scenario
Figure 29: Random grounding examples from MES scenario
Figure 30: Random grounding examples from PES scenario
Figure 31: Random grounding examples from CNC scenario
Figure 32: Random grounding examples from PCs scenario
This work presents a collection of multi-modal domain adapted large language models built upon the instruction tuned variants of open weight models (Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Gemma 4) using a relatively small dataset of around 50 million tokens. The dataset consists of open-access additive manufacturing journal articles with data extracted for the domain adaptive pretraining and visual instruction tuning processes. Various stages of the developed model are evaluated with the Additive-Manufacturing-Benchmark which consists of additive manufacturing domain specific tasks compiled published resources. Domain adapted and instruction tuned models exhibit proficiency in both language and vision based tasks, achieving accuracies upwards of 90% in general additive manufacturing knowledge. This domain adaptive pretraining and instruction tuning strategy outline an accessible specialization method for large language models to a domain such as additive manufacturing.
Peter Pak, Amir Barati Farimani
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA · Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
A single multimodal large language model (MLLM) struggles to excel simultaneously at detection, localization, description, and reasoning in multimodal industrial anomaly understanding (MM-IAU). We show that in-domain training does not close this gap. On MMAD, a widely adopted MM-IAU benchmark, trained specialists reach at most 75.5% accuracy in defect localization, against 92.3% for human experts, and even detect anomalies less accurately than their untrained base model. Meanwhile, different MLLMs offer complementary strengths but share this weakness in fine-grained perception, so combining them alone cannot remove it. We therefore propose SiGMA, a spatially grounded multi-agent framework that divides labor between heterogeneous MLLM agents and a dedicated visual defect expert. A multimodal searcher supplies industrial knowledge and normal references, the defect expert turns query-reference comparison into calibrated anomaly evidence, and a label-free reliability controller weighs each source by task-wise competence and query-level evidence quality. SiGMA reaches 85.2% average accuracy on MMAD, 4.0% above the strongest trained specialist and Gemini-2.5-Pro and within 1.5% of human experts. Even with three agents of at most 9B parameters, it reaches 84.4%, and new MLLMs join without retraining.
Xingwu Zhang, Duanyang Du, Huiling Zhu +5
Hunan University · University of Aberdeen · South China Normal University +1
The recent advancements introduced by Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can support complex, real world tasks, pushing research outside the text boundaries towards multi modal contexts and leading to Multimodal Large Language Models (MLMs). Given the current adoption of LLM based assistants in solving technical or domain specific problems, the natural continuation of this trend is to extend the input domains of these assistants exploiting MLMs. Ideally, these MLMs should be used as real time assistants in procedural tasks, hopefully integrating a view of the environment where the user being assisted is, or even better sharing the same point of view via Virtual Reality (VR) or Augmented Reality (AR) supports, to reason over the same scenario the user is experiencing. With this work, we aim at evaluating the quality of currently openly available MLMs to provide this kind of assistance on technical tasks. To this end, we annotated a data set of furniture assembly with step by step labels and manual references: the Manual to Action Dataset (M2AD). We used this dataset to assess (1) to which extent the reasoning abilities of MLMs can be used to reduce the need for detailed labelling, allowing for more efficient, cost effective annotation practices, (2) whether MLMs are able to track the progression of assembly steps (3) and whether MLMs can refer correctly to the instruction manual pages. Our results showed that while some models understand procedural sequences, their performance is limited by architectural and hardware constraints, highlighting the need for multi image and interleaved text image reasoning.
Federico Toschi, Nicolò Brunello, Andrea Sassella +2
DEIB, Politecnico di Milano, Via Ponzio 34/5, 20133, Milano (MI), Italy · KASTEL, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Am Fasanengarten, 576131, Karlsruhe, Germany