Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Redundancy Principles for MLLMs Benchmarks

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 2501.13953 v2 pith:S2M3TIQX submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords redundancybenchmarksmllmmllmshundredsnumberprinciplesrapid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the rapid iteration of Multi-modality Large Language Models (MLLMs) and the evolving demands of the field, the number of benchmarks produced annually has surged into the hundreds. The rapid growth has inevitably led to significant redundancy among benchmarks. Therefore, it is crucial to take a step back and critically assess the current state of redundancy and propose targeted principles for constructing effective MLLM benchmarks. In this paper, we focus on redundancy from three key perspectives: 1) Redundancy of benchmark capability dimensions, 2) Redundancy in the number of test questions, and 3) Cross-benchmark redundancy within specific domains. Through the comprehensive analysis over hundreds of MLLMs' performance across more than 20 benchmarks, we aim to quantitatively measure the level of redundancy lies in existing MLLM evaluations, provide valuable insights to guide the future development of MLLM benchmarks, and offer strategies to refine and address redundancy issues effectively. The code is available at https://github.com/zzc-1998/Benchmark-Redundancy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Affordance Benchmark for MLLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 2,000-question benchmark finds multimodal AI models recognize object affordances far worse than humans, with top model Gemini-2.0-Pro at 18.05% versus 85.34% human best.

  2. Jigsaw-Puzzles: From Seeing to Understanding to Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current vision-language models fall far short of humans on spatial reasoning, especially when they must generate answers directly instead of choosing from options.

Pith tools