cs.CVAug 26, 2026

Modality Maturity Index: A benchmark for assessing multimodal capabilities of omni models

Authors: Rohit Patel, Dieuwke Hupkes, Sloan Strader

Organizations: Meta Superintelligence Labs

Abstract

Frontier language models are increasingly marketed as omni systems that can perceive and respond across modalities. Existing evaluation frameworks, however, focus almost exclusively on bimodal understanding, typically text plus one other modality. We propose the Modality Maturity Index (MMI), a benchmark designed to evaluate the multimodal capabilities of large language models across five modalities (text, image, audio, video and document) and combinations of up to three modalities in both inputs and outputs. MMI consists of 893 questions, each carefully crafted to require the model to demonstrate its understanding of multiple input modalities and to generate responses that incorporate various output formats. The questions are designed to be self-contained, with clear expectations for the correct modality or mix of modalities required for an accurate response. Every MMI prompt carries human-authored rubric criteria for each output modality expected in the response; a model's MMI Value expresses the average of the per-modality scores for each prompt. Because low scores can reflect either failure to generate a modality (lack of presence) or failure to generate correct content, we introduce also a supplementary Modality Presence Score (MPS), a per-prompt F1 over the expected output modalities. Applying MMI to five frontier multimodal models, we find that the MPS ranges from only 15.6 (Claude Opus 4.6) to 34.9 (GPT-5.4). Given the low availability of returned modalities to even grade, we report MPS as our main result pending model improvements. To assess the viability of judging output correctness with LLM judges and rubrics, we run a separate experiment with custom generation tools. On the assets that generates, we find that an LLM judge applying the rubrics agrees with rubric-blind human annotators (who score the outputs directly and never see the criteria) on 70.8% of judgments.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables2 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. MMMG: a Comprehensive and Reliable Benchmark for Multitask Multimodal Generation

    May 23, 2025Jihan Yao, Yushi Hu, Wenyuan Wang +10Multimodal GenerationMultimodal Model Evaluation

  2. What We are Missing in Multimodal LLM Evaluation?

    Jun 24, 2026Po-han Li, Shenghui Chen, Sandeep Chinchali +1Spatiotemporal ReasoningMultimodal Large Language Models

  3. OmniJudge or OmniBias? Diagnosing Multimodal Judges through Balanced, Decoupled Lenses

    Aug 25, 2026Guangzheng Hu, Ziyue Jiang, Weixu Qiao +14Multimodal Model EvaluationMultimodal Understanding