MLLM Evaluation

Omnimodal large language models (Omni-LLMs) are increasingly expected to assist users while observing continuous audiovisual streams. However, existing evaluations provide limited insight into how reliably these models connect stream evidence and user needs to timely, sustained interventions. We introduce Omni-InteractScope, a benchmark of 1,479 human-annotated, cross-reviewed interactions with 1,790 temporal targets across eight task groups. It links input modalities, event triggers, intervention types, and user needs, covering event-timed tool invocation and query-free assistance alongside notifications, warnings, state tracking, and continuous responses. Our experimental results on the proposed benchmark reveal three critical limitations of current Omni-LLMs: (1) Timely tool invocation remains unreliable: all 12 evaluated models produce an on-time first response for at most 40% of tool-invocation targets, and joint timing-and-tool accuracy reaches at most 32.0%. (2) Query-free reminders remain poorly covered: all evaluated models achieve lower timely reference-target recall on query-free reminders than on explicit questions, measured on their respective target sets. Reminder recall never exceeds 23.0%. (3) End-to-end guidance coverage remains limited: nine models cover none of the 26 guidance sequences in full, and the remaining three cover only one to three sequences each. Targeted controls further show that tool-invocation scores alone do not establish event grounding and that reminder coverage depends on response history and frequency. These findings motivate developing and evaluating streaming assistants for timely action, initiative under general user needs, and coverage of entire response sequences.

Advertisers routinely create multiple duration variants of ads to meet marketing budgets and viewer preferences, a labor-intensive and costly process. While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at general video understanding, their ability to perform specialized editorial tasks remains unexplored. We introduce AdShot, a benchmark for evaluating MLLMs on shot selection for ad clipping. It contains 823 professionally edited ad pairs (30-sec sources and 15-sec edits) across 194 brands and 17 industries, annotated with shot-level boundaries and content features (action, emotion, information, imagery). We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art video-only MLLMs and 2 audio-visual MLLMs (7B-72B parameters) on shot selection accuracy (Precision, Recall, F1), duration constraints (15s), and content preservation, including an audio ablation. We find: (1) model architecture matters more than scale, with smaller models often matching or exceeding larger ones; performance is strongest for target ads with 6-10 shots; (2) models exhibit a mean absolute duration error of 5.39s, with most tending to overshoot the 15s target, though they can still substantially reduce human editing effort; (3) all models exhibit systematic content biases, favoring information-rich and emotion-focused shots while under-selecting action and imagery. We publicly release our benchmark to facilitate research at the intersection of multimodal AI and computational advertising.

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have seen broad adoption, but their biases are still far less examined than those of standard LLMs, creating possible social harms when deployed in real-world settings. Prior efforts to extend bias analyses from LLMs into the multi-modal space either cover only a few bias categories or do not ensure that the groups being compared are clearly addressed by visual cues in the images. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Melange, a wide-ranging synthetic visual benchmark covering seven categories for assessing social biases in MLLMs. It is grounded in the widely used language-only BBQ dataset (Bias Benchmark for Question Answering) from BigBench, carefully extending its constructed contexts via controlled generation of visual scenarios so the target attributes appear visually and clearly. To maximize reliability, our generated images pass through two stages of validation: automated screening using visual question answering (VQA) and subsequent manual inspection by human annotators. By systematically evaluating 23 open-source MLLMs across three matched evaluation settings---text-only, image-only, and image-with-context---Melange isolates the fairness effect of the input modality. Switching from text to vision reduces fairness by 0.291 on average, a gap that varies by model family rather than by scale alone. A perception control confirms that this gap is not an artifact of visual comprehension: models identify the depicted attributes at 90--95% accuracy yet still fail to abstain. When models do commit to a biased answer, polarity-aware stereotype alignment shows they choose the human-stereotypical response roughly three-quarters of the time.

Building an omni-modal foundation model means evaluating it across text, image, video, and audio. Excellent evaluation toolkits exist for each modality, but their inference engines, prompt conventions, and metric implementations are mutually incompatible, so practitioners end up maintaining separate environments for every toolchain and still struggle to compare results across them. OmniEvaluator grew out of this need in our own model development: rather than reimplementing benchmarks, it connects existing inference engines and curated evaluation libraries at a higher level, exposing four inference backends, four evaluation frameworks, and over a thousand benchmarks through a single interface. Every run is recorded as an artifact capturing the full configuration for exact reproduction, and results flow into a shared dashboard for cross-model comparison. A federated mode shares GPU inference servers across concurrent evaluations, and a built-in verifier, small enough to run on CPU, keeps its score stable across engines and prompts where rule-based scoring fluctuates under configuration mismatch, matching cost-efficient commercial LLM judges without their recurring API cost. The system, demo video, and dashboard are publicly available. (https://github.com/naver-ai/omni-evaluator)

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.

Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers. Current verification approaches have notable limitations. Existing approaches either require expensive labelled supervision with inconsistent cross-task performance or aggregate scores from multiple sources by simple aggregations, missing a key insight: when these scores disagree, that disagreement itself carries important information about whether a reasoning step is truly valid or not. We formalise this as a coupled scoring problem among disparate, frozen verifiers, interpretable as a coordination game with a unique closed-form equilibrium where agreement signals valid steps while disagreement reveals instability. Towards this end, we propose a training-free domain-agnostic step-wise verification approach we call VERDICT: VERification via Disagreement-Informed Coupled Thresholding. To our knowledge, VERDICT is the first training-free verifier that makes the structure of cross-modal disagreement explicit and actionable. It computes consensus scores through a closed-form solution, enabling both disagreement-aware filtering and stability-conscious ranking of reasoning steps. Evaluated across six benchmarks, \method consistently improves over the base model by up to +5.95%, and performs competitively with domain-specific critics that demand extensive supervision, demonstrating that cross-modal agreement provides robust verification signals without task-specific adaptation and Training-Free Verification

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) make grounded predictions in real-world scenes by combining visual and textual cues, yet existing benchmarks rarely reveal how they arbitrate between these evidence sources when they conflict. We introduce SIGNPOST-Bench, a controlled counterfactual benchmark for evaluating text-vision conflict resolution. Each source image is transformed into a counterfactual quintuplet of Original, Blank, Similar, Random, and Adversarial variants. Synthetic, localized scene-text interventions are designed to preserve non-textual content, enabling paired measurements of changes in localization performance and directed shifts toward geographic targets introduced by conflicting text. SIGNPOST-Bench contains 5,111 counterfactual groups and 25,555 image variants from four datasets. We evaluate 20 MLLMs from seven providers. Compared with Original images, Adversarial variants raise median localization error from 282 km to 1,347 km, a 4.8-fold increase. Among geocodable adversarial samples, 6.5-20.1% of predictions lie less than 50 km from the injected target across models, and every evaluated model exhibits a positive mean paired reduction in target distance from Blank to Adversarial. Compatible, unrelated, and conflicting text replacements produce distinct effects on model predictions, while clean-input localization performance does not fully predict robustness to conflicting text. These results establish visual geolocation as a continuous diagnostic of scene-text arbitration and provide a controlled framework for evaluating how MLLMs resolve conflicting multimodal evidence.

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made substantial advances on benchmarks, yet their real-world effectiveness remains uncertain. This gap stems from the fundamental misalignment between benchmarks in controlled, static settings and the dynamic, interactive, and contextualized nature of real-world applications. To bridge this gap, we propose CEDI (Contextualized Evaluations of MLLMs through Dynamic, multi-round Interactions), a framework that recasts evaluation as a three-party interaction between an evaluatee model, an automated examiner, and a grader. The examiner conducts multi-turn, semi-structured conversation guided by a graph-based representation of the task. By navigating state-space transitions, CEDI deploys diverse strategies, from clarification requests to adversarial probes, to elicit performance evidence. We apply CEDI to visual hallucinations. Empirical results across multiple models, diverse settings, datasets, and domains show that contextualized, interactive evaluations reveal not only significantly more hallucinations than conventional static evaluation but also ones that more closely resemble those arising in practical use cases. We further show that hallucinations often accumulate over long contexts, through self-reinforcing dialogue history, and models are particularly vulnerable to questions requiring premise rejection or refusal. Together, these findings highlight CEDI as a step toward realistic, systematic, and ecologically valid assessments of MLLMs' capabilities. Code is available at github.com/williamium3000/cedi.

Existing egocentric benchmarks have primarily constructed the egocentric setting from first-person-view data, which makes it difficult to evaluate egocentric perspective itself in isolation. However, understanding first-person-view input and taking an egocentric perspective are separable abilities, especially when first-person body cues are absent or when other agents are present. To isolate egocentric perspective understanding, we introduce EgoGapBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring action selection in multi-agent egocentric scenes. We define the ability measured by this benchmark as Egocentric Action Selection (EAS): selecting an appropriate action from the agent's perspective in the presence of other agents. On EgoGapBench, humans answer reliably, whereas both open-source and proprietary MLLMs perform substantially worse and systematically select actions performed by other visible agents. Fine-tuning on existing egocentric data fails to close this gap and can even be detrimental. In contrast, fine-tuning on EgoGapBench training data improves accuracy but does not reach human performance. These results show that EAS is difficult to acquire from first-person-view data alone, and that MLLMs should be evaluated and trained not only for scene understanding but also for egocentric action selection.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.g., text, images, audio, and video, and generate textual responses. While their capabilities have advanced rapidly, evaluation of such models has not kept pace. Most existing evaluation benchmarks are limited to isolated tasks and reveal little about whether a model integrates information across modalities. We examine current means for evaluating MLLMs and review the existing benchmark taxonomy to identify gaps, including temporal-spatial coherence, physical world understanding, multimodal consistency, and selective attention. Addressing these gaps is essential for measuring real progress in multimodal intelligence and exposing capability boundaries.

Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.

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.

Language agents are increasingly deployed over accumulating multimodal information, yet existing benchmarks assume a human-human form with sparse visuals and straightforward content, evaluating neither reasoning over authentic multimodal file interaction nor the interpretation of concealed user information. We therefore introduce M$^3$Exam, a query-centric multimodal conversational memory benchmark built on realistic user-agent interaction, with multi-dimensional evaluation spanning cross-modal grounding and implicit information inference. Benchmarking MLLMs and memory systems reveals persistent gaps in cross-modal grounding, cross session reasoning, and the efficiency cost of accumulating multimodal context. We further propose M$^3$Proctor, a multimodal memory method that detects query modality bias and consumes raw visual sources only on demand, improving accuracy by 13% while cutting index-construction time and retrieved tokens by over 70%.

Sign Language Translation (SLT) is typically evaluated with surface-form metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE, which reward lexical overlap but do not directly measure whether a translation preserves the meaning of the source sign sequence. This is in contrast with the final objective of integrating SLT in assistive technology. In this work, we shift the focus from Sign Language Translation (SLT) to Sign Language Understanding (SLU), with particular emphasis on semantic understanding. Specifically, we evaluate systems based on their ability to correctly recover, from the input video, key semantic aspects of the original sentence, such as actions taking place and facts about people and objects. To enable this evaluation systematically, we propose SLU-2K, a dataset of 2,350 closed-ended video question-answer pairs based on the popular PHOENIX-2014T and CSL-Daily datasets. To obtain SLU-2K, we propose and extensively evaluate an automated data generation pipeline which produces questions across 7 categories, namely actions, locations, numbers, objects, people, time, and weather conditions. We show the potential of SLU-2K by evaluating popular Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and two representative state-of-the-art systems, MMSTL and SpaMo. Our results show that MLLMs reach near-random performance, highlighting the need for a more systematic integration of SLU in current AI systems. Furthermore, state-of-the-art translation systems carefully fine-tuned on in-domain data still exhibit a substantial semantic gap, with results ranging from 56.7% to 75.2%. These findings suggest that current SLT evaluation protocols overestimate true understanding and that future progress should be measured not only by fluency and n-gram overlap, but also by semantic correctness. Code, prompts, and benchmark files are available at https://github.com/ZenoTsT/SLU-2K

Authentic school examinations provide a high-validity test bed for evaluating multimodal large language models (MLLMs), yet benchmarks grounded in Japanese K-12 assessments remain scarce. We present a multimodal dataset constructed from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability, comprising officially released middle-school items in Science, Mathematics, and Japanese Language. Unlike existing benchmarks based on synthetic or curated data, our dataset preserves real exam layouts, diagrams, and Japanese educational text, together with nationwide aggregated student response distributions (N $\approx$ 900{,}000). These features enable direct comparison between human and model performance under a unified evaluation framework. We benchmark recent multimodal LLMs using exact-match accuracy and character-level F1 for open-ended responses, observing substantial variation across subjects and strong sensitivity to visual reasoning demands. Human evaluation and LLM-as-judge analyses further assess the reliability of automatic scoring. Our dataset establishes a reproducible, human-grounded benchmark for multimodal educational reasoning and supports future research on evaluation, feedback generation, and explainable AI in authentic assessment contexts. Our dataset is available at: https://github.com/KyosukeTakami/gakucho-benchmark

Aligning Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) requires reliable reward models, yet existing single-step evaluators can suffer from lazy judging, exploiting language priors over fine-grained visual verification. While rubric-based evaluation mitigates these biases in text-only settings, extending it to multimodal tasks is bottlenecked by the complexity of visual reasoning. The critical differences between responses often depend on instance-specific visual details. Robust evaluation requires dynamically synthesizing rubrics that isolate spatial and factual discrepancies. To address this, we introduce $\textbf{DeltaRubric}$, an approach that reformulates multimodal preference evaluation as a plan-and-execute process within a single MLLM. DeltaRubric operates in two steps: acting first as a $\textit{Disagreement Planner}$, the model generates a neutral, instance-specific verification checklist. Transitioning into a $\textit{Checklist Verifier}$, it executes these self-generated checks against the image and question to produce the final grounded judgment. We formulate DeltaRubric as a multi-role reinforcement learning problem, jointly optimizing planning and verification capabilities. Validated on Qwen3-VL 4B and 8B Instruct models, DeltaRubric achieves solid empirical gains. For instance, On VL-RewardBench, it improves base model overall accuracy by $\textbf{+22.6}$ (4B) and $\textbf{+18.8}$ (8B) points, largely outperforming standard no-rubric baselines. The results demonstrate that decomposing evaluation into structured, verifiable steps leads to more reliable and generalizable multimodal reward modeling.

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.

With the rapid development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), their potential in Micro-Action understanding, a vital role in human emotion analysis, remains unexplored due to the absence of specialized benchmarks. To tackle this issue, we present MA-Bench, a benchmark comprising 1,000 videos and a three-tier evaluation architecture that progressively examines micro-action perception, relational comprehension, and interpretive reasoning. MA-Bench contains 12,000 structured question-answer pairs, enabling systematic assessment of both recognition accuracy and action interpretation. The results of 23 representative MLLMs reveal that there are significant challenges in capturing motion granularity and fine-grained body-part dynamics. To address these challenges, we further construct MA-Bench-Train, a large-scale training corpus with 20.5K videos annotated with structured micro-action captions for fine-tuning MLLMs. The results of Qwen3-VL-8B fine-tuned on MA-Bench-Train show clear performance improvements across micro-action reasoning and explanation tasks. Our work aims to establish a foundation benchmark for advancing MLLMs in understanding subtle micro-action and human-related behaviors. Project Page: https://MA-Bench.github.io

Multimodal judges struggle to ground decisions in visual evidence. We present MJ1, a multimodal judge trained with reinforcement learning that enforces visual grounding through a structured grounded verification chain (observations $\rightarrow$ claims $\rightarrow$ verification $\rightarrow$ evaluation $\rightarrow$ scoring) and a counterfactual consistency reward that penalizes position bias. Even without training, our mechanism improves base-model accuracy on MMRB2 by +3.8 points on Image Editing and +1.7 on Multimodal Reasoning. After training, MJ1, with only 3B active parameters, achieves 77.0% accuracy on MMRB2 and surpasses orders-of-magnitude larger models like Gemini-3-Pro. These results show that grounded verification and consistency-based training substantially improve multimodal judgment without increasing model scale.

Despite impressive performance on standard benchmarks, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) face critical challenges in real-world clinical environments where medical images inevitably suffer various quality degradations. Existing benchmarks exhibit two key limitations: (1) absence of large-scale, multidimensional assessment across medical image quality gradients and (2) no systematic confidence calibration analysis. To address these gaps, we present MedQ-Deg, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating medical MLLMs under image quality degradations. MedQ-Deg provides multi-dimensional evaluation spanning 18 distinct degradation types, 30 fine-grained capability dimensions, and 7 imaging modalities, with 24,894 question-answer pairs. Each degradation is implemented at 3 severity degrees, calibrated by expert radiologists. We further introduce Calibration Shift metric, which quantifies the gap between a model's perceived confidence and actual performance to assess metacognitive reliability under degradation. Our comprehensive evaluation of 40 mainstream MLLMs reveals several critical findings: (1) overall model performance degrades systematically as degradation severity increases, (2) models universally exhibit the AI Dunning-Kruger Effect, maintaining inappropriately high confidence despite severe accuracy collapse, and (3) models display markedly differentiated behavioral patterns across capability dimensions, imaging modalities, and degradation types. We hope MedQ-Deg drives progress toward medical MLLMs that are robust and trustworthy in real clinical practice.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently emerged as general architectures capable of reasoning over diverse modalities. Benchmarks for MLLMs should measure their ability for cross-modal integration. However, current benchmarks are filled with shortcut questions, which can be solved using only a single modality, thereby yielding unreliable rankings. For example, in vision-language cases, we can find the correct answer without either the image or the text. These low-quality questions unnecessarily increase the size and computational requirements of benchmarks. We introduce a multi-modal and multidimensional item response theory framework (M3IRT) that extends classical IRT by decomposing both model ability and item difficulty into image-only, text-only, and cross-modal components. M3IRT estimates cross-modal ability of MLLMs and each question's cross-modal difficulty, enabling compact, high-quality subsets that better reflect multimodal reasoning. Across 24 VLMs on three benchmarks, M3IRT prioritizes genuinely cross-modal questions over shortcuts and preserves ranking fidelity even when 50% of items are artificially generated low-quality questions, thereby reducing evaluation cost while improving reliability. M3IRT thus offers a practical tool for assessing cross-modal reasoning and refining multimodal benchmarks.

Safety evaluation of multimodal large language models requires tracking not only whether an attack succeeds, but also how the interaction unfolds across turns and input modalities. We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, browser-based, run-centric platform for multimodal safety evaluation. MUSE treats each attack run as the persistent unit of execution, inspection, and analysis, preserving its configuration, multi-turn trajectory, delivered modalities and media, target responses, and safety judgments. A five-level response taxonomy further distinguishes full Compliance from Partial Compliance and refusal behavior, yielding hard ASR, soft ASR, and gray-zone width (GZW). Across 11,700 evaluations on six multimodal LLMs, direct text-only requests yield only 3.1% macro hard ASR and 4.4% soft ASR, while iterative attack procedures are substantially more effective. Attack effectiveness also varies substantially with the attacker backbone. In contrast, Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS), evaluated as a controlled delivery-modality probe, does not consistently increase attack success. These results demonstrate the value of run-centric, fine-grained evaluation for characterizing multimodal safety behavior beyond a single binary success metric.

Social understanding abilities are crucial for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to interpret human social interactions. We introduce SOCIAL CAPTION, a framework grounded in interaction theory to evaluate social understanding abilities of MLLMs along three dimensions: Social Inference (SI), the ability to make accurate inferences about interactions; Holistic Social Analysis (HSA), the ability to generate comprehensive descriptions of interactions; Directed Social Analysis (DSA), the ability to generate relevant information from interactions. We analyze factors influencing model performance in social understanding, such as scale, architectural design, and spoken context. Experiments with MLLM judges demonstrate a path towards scaling automated evaluation of multimodal social understanding.

Sarcasm detection remains challenging because sarcastic intent often depends on information across text, speech, and vision. We systematically evaluate large language models (LLMs) and multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) for sarcasm detection on English (MUStARD++) and Chinese (MCSD), considering both feature-extraction settings and direct classification. In the feature-extraction settings, audio provides the strongest unimodal performance on both datasets, while multimodal fusion shows dataset-dependent benefits. In direct classification, Qwen2.5-Omni achieves the strongest zero-shot performance among the evaluated models, with further substantial gains after fine-tuning. Error analysis further shows that additional modalities can both correct and introduce errors, highlighting the need for selective multimodal integration.

Document fraud poses a significant threat to industries reliant on secure and verifiable documentation, necessitating robust detection mechanisms. This study investigates the efficacy of state-of-the-art multi-modal large language models (LLMs)-including OpenAI O1, OpenAI 4o, Gemini Flash (thinking), Deepseek Janus, Grok, Llama 3.2 and 4, Qwen 2 and 2.5 VL, Mistral Pixtral, and Claude 3.5 and 3.7 Sonnet-in detecting fraudulent documents. We benchmark these models against each other and prior work on document fraud detection techniques using a standard dataset with real transactional documents. Through prompt optimization and detailed analysis of the models' reasoning processes, we evaluate their ability to identify subtle indicators of fraud, such as tampered text, misaligned formatting, and inconsistent transactional sums. Our results reveal that top-performing multi-modal LLMs demonstrate superior zero-shot generalization, outperforming conventional methods on out-of-distribution datasets, while several vision LLMs exhibit inconsistent or subpar performance. Notably, model size and advanced reasoning capabilities show limited correlation with detection accuracy, suggesting task-specific fine-tuning is critical. This study underscores the potential of multi-modal LLMs in enhancing document fraud detection systems and provides a foundation for future research into interpretable and scalable fraud mitigation strategies.

Automatically evaluating multimodal generation presents a significant challenge, as automated metrics often struggle to align with human evaluation, especially for complex tasks that involve multiple modalities. We present MMMG, the first benchmark to bring the verifiable-task paradigm to multimodal generation, spanning 4 modality combinations (image, audio, interleaved text and image, interleaved text and audio). As few multimodal outputs can be checked by programs alone, MMMG targets tasks that are either verifiable or near-verifiable: by providing references, and constraining model judges with explicit rubrics. We keep tasks challenging for generation models while enabling reliable automatic evaluation through a combination of models and programs. MMMG encompasses 55 tasks (including 31 newly developed ones), each with a carefully designed evaluation pipeline, and 1288 instructions to systematically assess reasoning, controllability, and other key capabilities of multimodal generation models. Extensive validation demonstrates that MMMG is highly aligned with human judgment, achieving an average agreement of 94.4%. Benchmarking results on 29 models reveal that even though the state-of-the-art model, GPT Image, achieves 70.7% accuracy for image generation, it falls short on interleaved generation. Furthermore, results suggest considerable improvement space in audio generation, highlighting an important future direction.

Although recent large multimodal models (LMMs) show impressive progress on vision language tasks, their alignment with human centered (HC) principles such as fairness, ethics, inclusivity, empathy, and robustness is often overlooked. Existing LMM benchmarks are largely accuracy-agnostic. We present HumaniBench, a unified framework for characterizing HC alignment across realistic, socially grounded visual contexts. It contains 32,000 expert-verified image-question pairs from real-world news imagery, each mapped to one or more HC principles through explicit metrics. Comparing 15 state of the art LMMs reveals consistent trade -offs: proprietary systems lead on ethics, reasoning, and empathy, while open-source models show superior visual grounding and resilience. All models show persistent gaps in fairness and multilingual inclusivity. Chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling yield 8to 12 % gains on several HC dimensions. HumaniBench enables fine-grained analysis of alignment trade-offs not captured by conventional multimodal benchmarks. https://vectorinstitute.github.io/humanibench/

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

Deepfake detection remains a critical challenge in the era of advanced generative models, particularly as synthetic media becomes more sophisticated. In this study, we explore the potential of state of the art multi-modal (reasoning) large language models (LLMs) for deepfake image detection such as (OpenAI O1/4o, Gemini thinking Flash 2, Deepseek Janus, Grok 3, llama 3.2, Qwen 2/2.5 VL, Mistral Pixtral, Claude 3.5/3.7 sonnet) . We benchmark 12 latest multi-modal LLMs against traditional deepfake detection methods across multiple datasets, including recently published real-world deepfake imagery. To enhance performance, we employ prompt tuning and conduct an in-depth analysis of the models' reasoning pathways to identify key contributing factors in their decision-making process. Our findings indicate that best multi-modal LLMs achieve competitive performance with promising generalization ability with zero shot, even surpass traditional deepfake detection pipelines in out-of-distribution datasets while the rest of the LLM families performs extremely disappointing with some worse than random guess. Furthermore, we found newer model version and reasoning capabilities does not contribute to performance in such niche tasks of deepfake detection while model size do help in some cases. This study highlights the potential of integrating multi-modal reasoning in future deepfake detection frameworks and provides insights into model interpretability for robustness in real-world scenarios.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit shortfalls when interpreting images and, by some measures, have poorer spatial cognition than young children or animals. Despite this, they attain high scores on many popular visual benchmarks, with headroom rapidly eroded by model progress. This creates a need for difficult benchmarks that remain relevant for longer. We introduce ZeroBench - a lightweight visual reasoning benchmark curated using adversarial filtering to be "impossible" for frontier LMMs at its original release, with initial SotA scores of 0% pass@1 and pass^5. We track progress on ZeroBench over the subsequent year, observing SotA reaching 6% pass^5 and 19% pass@5, indicating the potential longevity of the benchmark. We evaluate 46 LMMs on ZeroBench, compare performance to a human baseline, analyse strengths and weaknesses, chart a year of progress in visual capabilities, and publicly release ZeroBench at https://zerobench.github.io.