Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

IsoBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Foundation Models on Isomorphic Representations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.01266 v3 pith:OUGASVG4 submitted 2024-04-01 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords isobenchmodelsrepresentationsfoundationpointstextwhenworse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Current foundation models exhibit impressive capabilities when prompted either with text only or with both image and text inputs. But do their capabilities change depending on the input modality? In this work, we propose $\textbf{IsoBench}$, a benchmark dataset containing problems from four major areas: math, science, algorithms, and games. Each example is presented with multiple $\textbf{isomorphic representations}$ of inputs, such as visual, textual, and mathematical presentations. IsoBench provides fine-grained feedback to diagnose performance gaps caused by the form of the representation. Across various foundation models, we observe that on the same problem, models have a consistent preference towards textual representations. Most prominently, when evaluated on all IsoBench problems, Claude-3 Opus performs 28.7 points worse when provided with images instead of text; similarly, GPT-4 Turbo is 18.7 points worse and Gemini Pro is 14.9 points worse. Finally, we present two prompting techniques, $\textit{IsoCombination}$ and $\textit{IsoScratchPad}$, which improve model performance by considering combinations of, and translations between, different input representations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PARC: A Quantitative Framework Uncovering the Symmetries within Vision Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    PARC measures prompt sensitivity in VLMs, showing semantic changes hurt most and InternVL2 models are most robust.

  2. Seeing is Believing, but How Much? A Comprehensive Analysis of Verbalized Calibration in Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current vision-language models are largely miscalibrated when they verbalize confidence, visual reasoning models such as o3 and o4-mini are better calibrated, and Visual Confidence-Aware Prompting reduces ECE on IsoBench.

  3. Domain Specific Benchmarks for Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review paper that organizes domain-specific MLLM benchmarks into an eight-discipline taxonomy, with summary tables and performance highlights.

Pith tools