MM-IssueLoc: A Controlled Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Evidence in Multimodal Repository-Level Issue Localization

Repository-grounded automated repair is often reported as a single end-to-end capability, which hides distinct failure modes such as poor file targeting, incorrect patch synthesis, and failed iterative debugging. We present Loc2Repair, a modular evaluation framework for controlled analysis of repository-grounded repair pipelines, and use it to isolate file-level issue localization as an upstream variable. Loc2Repair decouples localization and repair under a shared runtime, artifact schema, and evaluation harness, allowing researchers to combine different localization models and repair backbones under matched conditions. Using three repair backbones on SWE-bench Verified, we compare baseline repair without explicit localization, repair guided by predicted localization from two localizers, and repair guided by gold modified-file sets. Explicit localization consistently improves resolved rate across all backbones: pooled performance increases from 44.7% for baseline repair to 48.9% and 49.1% with predicted localization, and to 52.4% with gold localization. Localization also reduces mean elapsed time overall: in pooled paired analysis, mean elapsed time decreases by 100.94 s and 52.25 s for the two predicted-localization settings, and by 154.45 s with gold guidance, although token effects remain heterogeneous across models. Overall, Loc2Repair shows file-level localization is a consistent repair lever, improving effectiveness and mean latency in pooled analysis, while gold-guided failures expose headroom beyond localization.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are predominantly evaluated on free-form vision-language tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, and summarization. However, their practical use is rapidly expanding to more structured computer vision settings, where users prompt models to perform localization-centric tasks such as object detection, often within larger agentic or decision-making systems. Despite this shift, there is currently no standardized benchmark that systematically evaluates these capabilities at scale. In this work, we introduce the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to assess the promptable localization abilities of generalist MLLMs. Our benchmark spans four core task categories: object detection, referring expression detection, instance-level detection, and video-based detection. To enable consistent and fair evaluation, we develop a unified framework that standardizes inputs, enforces parsable bounding box outputs, and defines transparent evaluation protocols across tasks. Using this suite, we evaluate a diverse set of open-source and proprietary MLLMs, providing an in-depth analysis of their performance and limitations. Beyond accuracy, we examine models' ability to adhere to output format specifications, showing that current systems are highly sensitive to formatting constraints and often fail to generalize even to minor variations. Our results highlight both the strengths and shortcomings of state-of-the-art MLLMs in localization settings, and point toward important directions for improving multimodal model design and evaluation.

We conduct a systematic study of 18 widely used vision-language benchmarks and identify three major issues: 1) many items do not rely on visual cues and therefore fail to effectively measure multimodal understanding; 2) many items are already close to performance saturation for current LVLMs, which limits their discriminative power; 3) a small number of anomalous items affect the reliability of evaluation results. To this end, we propose MMGist, a curated benchmark that covers seven capability dimensions and contains 7,262 items. MMGist is constructed through a three-stage pipeline, which sequentially combines text-ablation filtering, cross-model saturation filtering, and anomaly detection filtering. We conduct extensive experiments on 27 leading LVLMs and compare MMGist with the raw pool of 23,250 items. The results show that MMGist preserves model rankings with high fidelity, with Spearman $ρ= 0.98$, while reducing evaluation items by 69% and improving cross-model discrimination by 78%. Further results indicate that Visual Logic remains a systematic weakness of current LVLMs, while knowledge-intensive dimensions such as Expert Knowledge dimensions remain important factors for distinguishing closed-source models from open-source models. These findings suggest that high-quality evaluation should prioritize visual dependency, discriminative power, and reliability, rather than simply pursuing benchmark scale.