VLM Judges Can Rank but Cannot Score: Task-Dependent Uncertainty in Multimodal Evaluation

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used in industry VLM applications such as retrieval systems, content generation platforms, and decision-support workflows, where model selection is commonly guided by benchmark rankings. These rankings are largely determined by retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks; however, models with similar task performance often show substantially different behavior across datasets. This creates a Capability-Reliability Gap between benchmark performance and observed model stability. We present ARGUS-EVAL, a capability-reliability-oriented evaluation framework for VLMs that characterizes model behavior through Benchmark Capability P(M), Cross-Dataset Consistency CDC(M), Robustness Retention RR(M), and Efficiency E(M). We evaluate CLIP, BLIP, LXMERT, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen-2.5VL-3B-Instruct across retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks. The results reveal notable differences between capability-oriented and reliability-oriented rankings. Qwen-2.5VL-3BInstruct achieves the strongest overall capability (R@1 = 82.7%, BLEU-4 = 47.2%, CIDEr = 141.6, CDC = 0.91), whereas CLIP records the lowest latency (31 ms) and memory footprint (0.9 GB).

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.