Multimodal Model Evaluation

Automated building facade inspection is a critical component of urban resilience and smart city maintenance. Traditionally, this field has relied on specialized discriminative models (e.g., YOLO, Mask R-CNN) that excel at pixel-level localization but are constrained to passive perception and worse generization without the visual understandng to interpret structural topology. Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) promise a paradigm shift toward active reasoning, yet their application in such high-stakes engineering domains lacks rigorous evaluation standards. To bridge this gap, we introduce a human-in-the-loop semi-automated annotation framework, leveraging expert-proposal verification to unify 12 fragmented datasets into a standardized, hierarchical ontology. Building on this foundation, we present DefectBench, the first multi-dimensional benchmark designed to interrogate LMMs beyond basic semantic recognition. DefectBench evaluates 18 state-of-the-art (SOTA) LMMs across three escalating cognitive dimensions: Semantic Perception, Spatial Localization, and Generative Geometry Segmentation. Extensive experiments reveal that while current LMMs demonstrate exceptional topological awareness and semantic understanding (effectively diagnosing "what" and "how"), they exhibit significant deficiencies in metric localization precision ("where"). Crucially, however, we validate the viability of zero-shot generative segmentation, showing that general-purpose foundation models can rival specialized supervised networks without domain-specific training. This work provides both a rigorous benchmarking standard and a high-quality open-source database, establishing a new baseline for the advancement of autonomous AI agents in civil engineering.

Despite the rapid progress of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), their ability to perform reliable visual grounding in high-stakes clinical software environments remains underexplored. Existing GUI benchmarks largely focus on isolated, single-step grounding queries, overlooking the sequential, workflow-driven reasoning required in real-world medical interfaces, where tasks evolve across independent steps and dynamic interface states. We introduce MedSPOT, a workflow-aware sequential grounding benchmark for clinical GUI environments. Unlike prior benchmarks that treat grounding as a standalone prediction task, MedSPOT models procedural interaction as a sequence of structured spatial decisions. The benchmark comprises 216 task-driven videos with 597 annotated keyframes, in which each task consists of 2 to 3 interdependent grounding steps within realistic medical workflows. This design captures interface hierarchies, contextual dependencies, and fine-grained spatial precision under evolving conditions. To evaluate procedural robustness, we propose a strict sequential evaluation protocol that terminates task assessment upon the first incorrect grounding prediction, explicitly measuring error propagation in multi-step workflows. We further introduce a comprehensive failure taxonomy, including edge bias, small-target errors, no prediction, near miss, far miss, and toolbar confusion, to enable systematic diagnosis of model behavior in clinical GUI settings. By shifting evaluation from isolated grounding to workflow-aware sequential reasoning, MedSPOT establishes a realistic and safety-critical benchmark for assessing multimodal models in medical software environments. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tajamul21/MedSPOT.

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.

Human Label Variation (HLV), i.e. systematic differences among annotators' judgments, remains underexplored in benchmarks despite rapid progress in large language model (LLM) development. We address this gap by introducing an evaluation protocol for multimodal large language model (MLLM) benchmarking that explicitly accounts for two conditions: (1) human label agreement and (2) disagreement. We apply this protocol to two state-of-the-art MLLM families (Gemma 3, Qwen 2.5 VL) using non-aggregated human annotations from a social media content classification dataset. Across tasks, we find that larger models tend to perform best on high-agreement subsets, yet often underperform medium-sized models when human disagreement is high, indicating that parameter count alone does not determine sensitivity to ambiguity and subjectivity. These results show that benchmarks based solely on consensus labels can overstate model capabilities in such domains and that incorporating human label variation yields more realistic and robust assessments of MLLMs in content moderation pipelines.

Conventional wisdom for selecting supervision data for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is to prioritize datasets that appear similar to the target benchmark, such as text-intensive or vision-centric tasks. However, it remains unclear whether such intuitive similarity reliably predicts downstream performance gains. In this work, we take a first step toward answering a practical question: can we estimate the influence of a training dataset on a target benchmark before any training is performed? To investigate this question, we conduct an in-depth analysis of transfer across 14 vision-language datasets spanning 7 diverse tasks. Our results show that intuitive task similarity is an unreliable predictor of transferability, and that generalization depends more on the specific dataset than on its broad task category. Motivated by this finding, we propose DATAPROPHET, a simple and effective training-free metric that combines multimodal perplexity, similarity, and data diversity. Experiments show that DATAPROPHET produces supervision-data rankings that strongly correlate with rankings based on actual post-training performance gains, achieving a Kendall's tau of 86.0%. Moreover, DATAPROPHET enables better supervision-data selection, yielding up to 6.9% improvement over uniform selection, 1.4% over a state-of-the-art training-based baseline, and 0.2% above oracle selection based on experimental performance. Our code and data will be released.

Everyday photographs taken with ordinary cameras are already widely used in telemedicine and other online health conversations, yet no comprehensive benchmark evaluates whether vision-language models can interpret their medical content. Analyzing these images requires both fine-grained natural image understanding and domain-specific medical reasoning, a combination that challenges both general-purpose and specialized models. We introduce ReXInTheWild, a benchmark of 955 clinician-verified multiple-choice questions spanning seven clinical topics across 484 photographs sourced from the biomedical literature. When evaluated on ReXInTheWild, leading multimodal large language models show substantial performance variation: Gemini-3 achieves 78% accuracy, followed by Claude Opus 4.5 (72%) and GPT-5 (68%), while the medical specialist model MedGemma reaches only 37%. A systematic error analysis also reveals four categories of common errors, ranging from low-level geometric errors to high-level reasoning failures and requiring different mitigation strategies. ReXInTheWild provides a challenging, clinically grounded benchmark at the intersection of natural image understanding and medical reasoning. The dataset is available on HuggingFace.

Recent vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong generalization and multimodal reasoning abilities in natural domains. However, their application to medical diagnosis remains limited by the lack of comprehensive and structured datasets that capture real clinical workflows. To advance the development of VLMs for clinical applications, particularly in gastric cancer, we introduce Gastric-X, a large-scale multimodal benchmark for gastric cancer analysis providing 1.7K cases. Each case in Gastric-X includes paired resting and dynamic CT scans, endoscopic image, a set of structured biochemical indicators, expert-authored diagnostic notes, and bounding box annotations of tumor regions, reflecting realistic clinical conditions. We systematically examine the capability of recent VLMs on five core tasks: Visual Question Answering (VQA), report generation, cross-modal retrieval, disease classification, and lesion localization. These tasks simulate critical stages of clinical workflow, from visual understanding and reasoning to multimodal decision support. Through this evaluation, we aim not only to assess model performance but also to probe the nature of VLM understanding: Can current VLMs meaningfully correlate biochemical signals with spatial tumor features and textual reports? We envision Gastric-X as a step toward aligning machine intelligence with the cognitive and evidential reasoning processes of physicians, and as a resource to inspire the development of next-generation medical VLMs.

Effective collaboration begins with knowing when to ask for help. For example, when trying to identify an occluded object, a human would ask someone to remove the obstruction. Can MLLMs exhibit a similar "proactive" behavior by requesting simple user interventions? To investigate this, we introduce ProactiveBench, a benchmark built from seven repurposed datasets that tests proactiveness across different tasks such as recognizing occluded objects, enhancing image quality, and interpreting coarse sketches. We evaluate 22 MLLMs on ProactiveBench, showing that (i) they generally lack proactiveness; (ii) proactiveness does not correlate with model capacity; (iii) "hinting" at proactiveness yields only marginal gains. Surprisingly, we found that conversation histories and in-context learning introduce negative biases, hindering performance. Finally, we explore a simple fine-tuning strategy based on reinforcement learning: its results suggest that proactiveness can be learned, even generalizing to unseen scenarios. We publicly release ProactiveBench as a first step toward building proactive multimodal models.

Recent advancements in omnimodal large language models (OmniLLMs) have significantly improved the comprehension of audio and video inputs. However, current evaluations primarily focus on short audio and video clips ranging from 10 seconds to 5 minutes, failing to reflect the demands of real-world applications, where videos typically run for tens of minutes. To address this critical gap, we introduce LVOmniBench, a new benchmark designed specifically for the cross-modal comprehension of long-form audio and video. This dataset comprises high-quality videos sourced from open platforms that feature rich audio-visual dynamics. Through rigorous manual selection and annotation, LVOmniBench comprises 275 videos, ranging in duration from 10 to 90 minutes, and 1,014 question-answer (QA) pairs. LVOmniBench aims to rigorously evaluate the capabilities of OmniLLMs across domains, including long-term memory, temporal localization, fine-grained understanding, and multimodal perception. Our extensive evaluation reveals that current OmniLLMs encounter significant challenges when processing extended audio-visual inputs. Open-source models generally achieve accuracies below 35%, whereas the Gemini 3 Pro reaches a peak accuracy of approximately 65%. We anticipate that this dataset, along with our empirical findings, will stimulate further research and the development of advanced models capable of resolving complex cross-modal understanding problems within long-form audio-visual contexts.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) perform strongly on natural images, yet their ability to understand discrete visual symbols remains unclear. We present a multi-domain benchmark spanning language, culture, mathematics, physics and chemistry, organized into three cognitive levels: perception and recognition, combination and reasoning, and association and critical thinking. Across leading MLLMs, we observe a consistent cognitive mismatch. Models frequently underperform on elementary symbol recognition while appearing relatively competent on more complex reasoning tasks. This recognition-reasoning inversion indicates that current systems often compensate with linguistic priors, template retrieval or procedural reasoning instead of robust visual grounding. The pattern is especially clear for sparse, low-redundancy symbols such as handwritten characters, formula graphs, circuit diagrams and chemical structures. These results show that symbolic understanding remains a major bottleneck for multimodal intelligence and motivate training and evaluation schemes that prioritize grounded perception in discrete semantic spaces.

Task interference, the performance degradation caused by task switches within a single conversation, has been studied exclusively in text-only settings despite the growing prevalence of multimodal dialogue systems. We introduce a benchmark for evaluating this phenomenon in multimodal LLMs, covering six tasks across text and vision with systematic variation of history-target along three axes: modality mismatch, reasoning mismatch, and answer format mismatch. Experiments on both open-weights and proprietary models reveal that task interference is highly directional: switching from text-only to image-based targets causes severe performance drops, while the reverse transition yields minimal degradation. Interference is further amplified when mismatches co-occur across multiple dimensions, and is driven most strongly by modality differences, followed by answer format, while reasoning requirement shifts cause minimal degradation.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with hallucinations, particularly with fine-grained queries, a challenge underrepresented by existing benchmarks that focus on coarse image-related questions. We introduce FIne-grained NEgative queRies (FINER), alongside two benchmarks: FINER-CompreCap and FINER-DOCCI. Using FINER, we analyze hallucinations across four settings: multi-object, multi-attribute, multi-relation, and ``what'' questions. Our benchmarks reveal that MLLMs hallucinate when fine-grained mismatches co-occur with genuinely present elements in the image. To address this, we propose FINER-Tuning, leveraging Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) on FINER-inspired data. Finetuning four frontier MLLMs with FINER-Tuning yields up to 24.2% gains (InternVL3.5-14B) on hallucinations from our benchmarks, while simultaneously improving performance on eight existing hallucination suites, and enhancing general multimodal capabilities across six benchmarks. Code, benchmark, and models are available at https://explainableml.github.io/finer-project/.

We present Omni-I2C, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the capability of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in converting complex, structured digital graphics into executable code. We argue that this task represents a non-trivial challenge for the current generation of LMMs: it demands an unprecedented synergy between high-fidelity visual perception -- to parse intricate spatial hierarchies and symbolic details -- and precise generative expression -- to synthesize syntactically sound and logically consistent code. Unlike traditional descriptive tasks, Omni-I2C requires a holistic understanding where any minor perceptual hallucination or coding error leads to a complete failure in visual reconstruction. Omni-I2C features 1080 meticulously curated samples, defined by its breadth across subjects, image modalities, and programming languages. By incorporating authentic user-sourced cases, the benchmark spans a vast spectrum of digital content -- from scientific visualizations to complex symbolic notations -- each paired with executable reference code. To complement this diversity, our evaluation framework provides necessary depth; by decoupling performance into perceptual fidelity and symbolic precision, it transcends surface-level accuracy to expose the granular structural failures and reasoning bottlenecks of current LMMs. Our evaluation reveals a substantial performance gap among leading LMMs; even state-of-the-art models struggle to preserve structural integrity in complex scenarios, underscoring that multimodal code generation remains a formidable challenge. Data and code are available at https://github.com/MiliLab/Omni-I2C.

Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) offer powerful cross-modality capabilities but introduce new safety risks not observed in single-task models. Despite their emergence, existing safety benchmarks remain fragmented across tasks and modalities, limiting the comprehensive evaluation of complex system-level vulnerabilities. To address this gap, we introduce UniSAFE, the first comprehensive benchmark for system-level safety evaluation of UMMs across 7 I/O modality combinations, spanning conventional tasks and novel multimodal-context image generation settings. UniSAFE is built with a shared-target design that projects common risk scenarios across task-specific I/O configurations, enabling controlled cross-task comparisons of safety failures. Comprising 6,802 curated instances, we use UniSAFE to evaluate 15 state-of-the-art UMMs, both proprietary and open-source. Our results reveal critical vulnerabilities across current UMMs, including elevated safety violations in multi-image composition and multi-turn settings, with image-output tasks consistently more vulnerable than text-output tasks. These findings highlight the need for stronger system-level safety alignment for UMMs. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/segyulee/UniSAFE

Dental triage is a safety-critical clinical routing task that requires integrating multimodal clinical information (e.g., patient complaints and radiographic evidence) to determine complete referral plans. We present Dental-TriageBench, the first expert-annotated benchmark for reasoning-driven multimodal dental triage. Built from authentic outpatient workflows, it contains 246 de-identified cases annotated with expert-authored golden reasoning trajectories, together with hierarchical triage labels. We benchmark 19 proprietary, open-source, and medical-domain MLLMs against three junior dentists serving as the human baseline, and find a substantial human--model gap, on fine-grained treatment-level triage. Further analyses show that accurate triage requires both complaint and OPG information, and that model errors concentrate on cases with multiple referral domains, where MLLMs tend to produce overly narrow referral sets and omission-heavy errors. Dental-TriageBench provides a realistic testbed for developing multimodal clinical AI systems that are more clinically grounded, coverage-aware, and safer for downstream care.

Multimodal evaluation is strengthened when benchmarks reflect the languages, institutions, and disciplinary conventions that shape expert visual reasoning. We introduce KMMMU, a native Korean benchmark built from Korean-native examination materials. KMMMU contains 3,466 questions spanning nine disciplines and nine visual modality categories. For targeted evaluation on challenging questions and Korean-specific knowledge, we additionally provide KMMMU-Adv and KMMMU-Local, respectively. Experiments show that the strongest evaluated open-weight model reaches 42.05% on the KMMMU, while the best evaluated proprietary model achieves 52.42% on the KMMMU-Adv. Performance varies substantially across disciplines and answer formats, with Korean-specific questions showing gaps of up to 13.43%. Error analysis suggests that inspected failures often involve convention-to-label mapping, few-shot symbolic induction, localized knowledge recall, and domain-specific standards, not reasoning depth alone. KMMMU provides a testbed for native Korean expert-level multimodal understanding beyond English-centric or translation-based evaluation.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have improved Document Layout Analysis (DLA), yet structural errors such as region merging, splitting, and omission remain persistent. Conventional overlap-based metrics (e.g., IoU, mAP) fail to capture such logical inconsistencies. To overcome this limitation, we propose Layout Error Detection (LED), a benchmark that evaluates structural reasoning in DLA predictions beyond surface-level accuracy. LED defines eight standardized error types (Missing, Hallucination, Size Error, Split, Merge, Overlap, Duplicate, and Misclassification) and provides quantitative rules and injection algorithms for realistic error simulation. Using these definitions, we construct LED-Dataset and design three evaluation tasks: document-level error detection, document-level error-type classification, and element-level error-type classification. Experiments with state-of-the-art multimodal models show that LED enables fine-grained and interpretable assessment of structural understanding, revealing clear weaknesses across modalities and architectures. Overall, LED establishes a unified and explainable benchmark for diagnosing the structural robustness and reasoning capability of document understanding models.

Evaluating omni-modal large language models (OLMs) in multi-party dialogue requires more than answer correctness on pre-segmented inputs. We introduce SocialOmni, an offline diagnostic benchmark that separates three turn-level decisions: identifying who is speaking, deciding when a designated participant should enter at an annotated query time, and determining how that participant should continue the dialogue. SocialOmni contains 2,000 perception items and a quality-controlled core split of 200 interaction-generation items, including naturally occurring speaker-visibility mismatches. Each item is independently checked by three human annotators. Evaluated systems receive only query-time-bounded multimodal evidence, while manually verified reference continuations are reserved for response judging. A complete three-judge ensemble scores every eligible response, with leave-one-judge-out and family-sensitivity audits. Across 11 OLMs, rankings vary substantially by axis, and coverage-adjusted scores reveal when high conditional response quality depends on selective turn entry. The protocol does not measure persistent streaming state or wall-clock latency.

Remote sensing underpins crucial applications such as disaster relief and ecological field surveys, where systems must understand complex scenes and constraints and make reliable decisions. Current remote-sensing benchmarks mainly focus on evaluating perception and reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). They fail to assess planning capability, stemming either from the difficulty of curating and validating planning tasks at scale or from evaluation protocols that are inaccurate and inadequate. To address these limitations, we introduce NeSy-Route, a large-scale neuro-symbolic benchmark for constrained route planning in remote sensing. Within this benchmark, we introduce an automated data-generation framework that integrates high-fidelity semantic masks with heuristic search to produce diverse route-planning tasks with provably optimal solutions. This allows NeSy-Route to comprehensively evaluate planning across 10,821 route-planning samples, nearly 10 times larger than the largest prior benchmark. Furthermore, a three-level hierarchical neuro-symbolic evaluation protocol is developed to enable accurate assessment and support fine-grained analysis on perception, reasoning, and planning simultaneously. Our comprehensive evaluation of various state-of-the-art MLLMs demonstrates that existing MLLMs show significant deficiencies in perception and planning capabilities. We hope NeSy-Route can support further research and development of more powerful MLLMs for remote sensing. The dataset and code are available at https://mingyang1010.github.io/NeSy-Route/.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently made rapid progress toward unified Omni models that integrate vision, language, and audio. However, existing environments largely focus on 2D or 3D visual context and vision-language tasks, offering limited support for temporally dependent auditory signals and selective cross-modal integration, where different modalities may provide complementary or interfering information, which are essential capabilities for realistic multimodal reasoning. As a result, whether models can actively coordinate modalities and reason under time-varying, irreversible conditions remains underexplored. To this end, we introduce EscapeCraft-4D, a customizable 4D environment for assessing selective cross-modal perception and time awareness in Omni models. It incorporates trigger-based auditory sources, temporally transient evidence, and location-dependent cues, requiring agents to perform spatio-temporal reasoning and proactive multimodal integration under time constraints. Building on this environment, we curate a benchmark to evaluate corresponding abilities across powerful models. Evaluation results suggest that models struggle with modality bias, and reveal significant gaps in current model's ability to integrate multiple modalities under time constraints. Further in-depth analysis uncovers how multiple modalities interact and jointly influence model decisions in complex multimodal reasoning environments.

We introduce VAREX (VARied-schema EXtraction), a benchmark for evaluating multimodal foundation models on structured data extraction from government forms. VAREX employs a Reverse Annotation pipeline that programmatically fills PDF templates with synthetic values, producing deterministic ground truth validated through three-phase quality assurance. The benchmark comprises 1,777 documents with 1,771 unique schemas across three structural categories, each provided in four input modalities: plain text, layout-preserving text (whitespace-aligned to approximate column positions), document image, or both text and image combined. Unlike existing benchmarks that evaluate from a single input representation, VAREX provides four controlled modalities per document, enabling systematic ablation of how input format affects extraction accuracy -- a capability absent from prior benchmarks. We evaluate 20 models from frontier proprietary models to small open models, with particular attention to models <=4B parameters suitable for cost-sensitive and latency-constrained deployment. Results reveal that (1) below 4B parameters, structured output compliance -- not extraction capability -- is a dominant bottleneck; in particular, schema echo (models producing schema-conforming structure instead of extracted values) depresses scores by 45-65 pp (percentage points) in affected models; (2) extraction-specific fine-tuning at 2B yields +81 pp gains, demonstrating that the instruction-following deficit is addressable without scale; (3) layout-preserving text provides the largest accuracy gain (+3-18 pp), exceeding pixel-level visual cues; and (4) the benchmark most effectively discriminates models in the 60-95% accuracy band. Dataset and evaluation code are publicly available.

As real-world knowledge continues to evolve, the parametric knowledge acquired by multimodal models during pretraining becomes increasingly difficult to remain consistent with real-world knowledge. Existing research on multimodal knowledge updating focuses only on learning previously unknown knowledge, while overlooking the need to update knowledge that the model has already mastered but that later changes; moreover, evaluation is limited to the same modality, lacking a systematic analysis of cross-modal consistency. To address these issues, this paper proposes MMKU-Bench, a comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal knowledge updating, which contains over 25k knowledge instances and more than 49k images, covering two scenarios, updated knowledge and unknown knowledge, thereby enabling comparative analysis of learning across different knowledge types. On this benchmark, we evaluate a variety of representative approaches, including supervised fine-tuning (SFT), reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and knowledge editing (KE). Experimental results show that SFT and RLHF are prone to catastrophic forgetting, while KE better preserve general capabilities but exhibit clear limitations in continual updating. Overall, MMKU-Bench provides a reliable and comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal knowledge updating, advancing progress in this field.

Multimodal Emotional Reappraisal (MER) aims to shift affective interpretation by rewriting and editing a situation without altering its underlying semantic context. Despite advances in controllable editing and sentiment transfer, MER remains challenging under coupled multimodal constraints, especially in internet memes where images, embedded text, and layout jointly encode affective meaning. To bridge this gap, we present MER-Bench, a systematic benchmark for MER on image-text memes, containing over 3,000 real-world memes with fine-grained annotations for emotion transformation and structure-preserving multimodal editing. MER-Bench spans diverse visual, textual, and structural settings and is paired with a structured MLLM-as-a-Judge evaluation suite, comprising eight fine-grained metrics and three aggregated objectives for emotional alignment, content fidelity, and transformation strength. Extensive evaluation of 14 advanced multimodal models reveals that: (1) current models struggle to jointly balance affect, semantics, structure, and text; (2) strong visual editing does not imply effective MER, with poor embedded text rendering and affect-aware rewriting remaining key bottlenecks. Our results identify MER as a critical capability gap in current multimodal generation systems and highlight affective image-text reasoning as a key challenge for future work. Project Page: https://github.com/one-seven17/MER-Bench

Analyzing street-view imagery with computer vision models offers a promising approach for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment, but existing approaches typically rely on black-box pre-trained vision models, which lack interpretability and reliability. This study proposes DamageArbiter, a multimodal disagreement-driven arbitration framework designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of street-view-based damage assessment. DamageArbiter leverages the complementary strengths of unimodal and multimodal models and employs a lightweight logistic regression meta-classifier to arbitrate cases in which model predictions disagree. Using 2,556 post-disaster street-view images, paired with manually generated or large language model (LLM)-generated text descriptions, we systematically compared DamageArbiter with fine-tuned unimodal (image-only and text-only) models and CLIP-based multimodal models in terms of classification performance and overconfidence errors. Results show that DamageArbiter improved accuracy to 75.85% and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) to 0.6188, compared with the best-performing text-only baseline (63.07% accuracy, 0.4126 MCC), image-only baseline (74.33% accuracy, 0.5947 MCC), and CLIP baseline (74.22% accuracy, 0.5915 MCC). The overconfidence analysis further reveals that DamageArbiter substantially reduced the overconfidence error from 70.58% for the best-performing baseline, the image-only ViT model, to 16.45%. Overall, this study demonstrates that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating disaster damage classification models and highlights the importance of measuring overconfidence errors as part of model reliability assessment. DamageArbiter thus offers a more reliable framework for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment from street-view imagery.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic mucosal inflammatory condition that places patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic surveillance remains the gold standard for assessing disease activity, and reporting typically relies on standardised endoscopic scoring metrics. The most widely used is the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES), with some centres also adopting the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS). Both are descriptive assessments of mucosal inflammation (MES: 0 to 3; UCEIS: 0 to 8), where higher values indicate more severe disease. However, computational methods for automatically predicting these scores remain limited, largely due to the lack of publicly available expert-annotated datasets and the absence of robust benchmarking. There is also a significant research gap in generating clinically meaningful descriptions of UC images, despite image captioning being a well-established computer vision task. Variability in endoscopic systems and procedural workflows across centres further highlights the need for multi-centre datasets to ensure algorithmic robustness and generalisability. In this work, we introduce a curated multi-centre, multi-resolution dataset that includes expert-validated MES and UCEIS labels, alongside detailed clinical descriptions. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive dataset that combines dual scoring metrics for classification tasks with expert-generated captions describing mucosal appearance and clinically accepted reasoning for image captioning. This resource opens new opportunities for developing clinically meaningful multimodal algorithms. In addition to the dataset, we also provide benchmarking using convolutional neural networks, vision transformers, hybrid models, and widely used multimodal vision-language captioning algorithms.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show promising performance in automated electrocardiogram interpretation, it remains unclear whether they perform actual step-by-step reasoning or just rely on superficial visual cues. To investigate this, we introduce ECG-Reasoning-Benchmark, a novel multi-turn evaluation framework comprising over 6,400 samples to systematically assess step- by-step reasoning across 17 core ECG diagnoses. Our comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art models reveals a systematic shortfall in executing multi-step logical deduction. Although models possess the medical knowledge to retrieve clinical criteria for a diagnosis, they exhibit consistently low success rates in maintaining a complete reasoning chain, primarily failing to ground the corresponding ECG findings to the actual visual evidence in the ECG signal. These results demonstrate that current MLLMs bypass actual visual interpretation, highlighting a limitation in their visual grounding capabilities and motivating robust, reasoning-centric medical AI. The code and data are available at https://github.com/Jwoo5/ecg-reasoning-benchmark.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance in visual and audio understanding when evaluated in isolation. However, their ability to jointly reason over omni-modal (visual, audio, and textual) signals in long and complex videos remains largely unexplored. We introduce MMOU, a new benchmark designed to systematically evaluate multimodal understanding and reasoning under these challenging, real-world conditions. MMOU consists of 20,000 carefully curated questions paired with 11877 web-collected videos of varying length, spanning diverse domains and exhibiting rich, tightly coupled audio-visual content. The benchmark covers 13 fundamental skill categories, all of which require integrating evidence across modalities and time. All questions are manually annotated across multiple turns by professional annotators, ensuring high quality and reasoning fidelity. We evaluate 20+ state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary multimodal models on MMOU. The results expose substantial performance gaps: the best closed-source model achieves only 64.2% accuracy, while the strongest open-source model reaches just 46.8%. Our results highlight the challenges of long-form omni-modal understanding, revealing that current models frequently fail to apply even fundamental skills in long videos. Through detailed analysis, we further identify systematic failure modes and provide insights into where and why current models break.

We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning through verifiable intermediate steps. We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which further penalizes disordered reasoning chains. References are constructed through a Delphi-inspired pipeline in which four independent MLLMs generate trajectories, which are then aggregated via semantic clustering and validated through human quality gates. Evaluation of 20 MLLMs, including commercial frontier systems not used during benchmark construction, reveals systematic failures that are invisible to answer accuracy: universal cherry-picking (precision far exceeds recall), non-monotonic scaling trade-offs, and disordered reasoning in which no competitive model preserves more than 60% of matched steps in the correct order. Beyond evaluation, we propose the Causal Process Reward (CPR), a multiplicative reward that couples answer correctness with step-level alignment, and CPR-Curriculum, which progressively increases reasoning difficulty during training. CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.

Virtual sensing aims to infer hard-to-measure quantities from accessible measurements and is central to perception and control in physical systems. Despite rapid progress from first-principle and hybrid models to modern data-driven methods research remains siloed, leaving no established default approach that transfers across processes, modalities, and sensing configurations. We introduce MuViS, a domain-agnostic benchmarking suite for multimodal virtual sensing that consolidates diverse datasets into a unified interface for standardized preprocessing and evaluation. Using this framework, we benchmark established approaches spanning gradient-boosted decision trees and deep neural network (NN) architectures, and show that none of these provides a universal advantage, underscoring the need for generalizable virtual sensing architectures. MuViS is released as an open-source, extensible platform for reproducible comparison and future integration of new datasets and model classes.

In different multimodal scenarios, it needs to integrate and utilize information across modalities in a specific way based on the demands of the task. Different integration ways between modalities are referred to as "multimodal interaction". How well a model handles various multimodal interactions largely characterizes its multimodal ability. In this paper, we introduce MIBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the multimodal interaction capabilities of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs), which formulates each instance as a (con_v , con_t, task) triplet with contexts from vision and text, necessitating that LMMs employ correct forms of multimodal interaction to effectively complete the task. MIBench assesses models from three key aspects: the ability to source information from vision-centric or text-centric cues, and the ability to generate new information from their joint synergy. Each interaction capability is evaluated hierarchically across three cognitive levels: Recognition, Understanding, and Reasoning. MIBench comprises over 10,000 vision-text context pairs spanning 32 distinct tasks. Evaluation of state-of-the-art LMMs show that: (1) LMMs' ability on multimodal interaction remains constrained, despite the scaling of model parameters and training data; (2) they are easily distracted by textual modalities when processing vision information; (3) they mostly possess a basic capacity for multimodal synergy; and (4) natively trained multimodal models show noticeable deficits in fundamental interaction ability. We expect that these observations can serve as a reference for developing LMMs with more enhanced multimodal ability in the future.