← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?

Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Yike Yuan, Wangbo Zhao, Jiaqi Wang, Conghui He, Ziwei Liu, Kai Chen, Dahua Lin

datasets & benchmarksVision-language Pre-trainingMultimodalityBenchmarkDataset
46.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
57.10100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
34.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — a new benchmark for vision-language pre-training

Abstract

Large vision-language models have recently achieved remarkable progress, exhibiting great perception and reasoning abilities concerning visual information. However, how to effectively evaluate these large vision-language models remains a major obstacle, hindering future development in this domain. Traditional benchmarks like VQAv2 or COCO Caption provide quantitative performance measurements but suffer from a lack of fine-grained ability assessment and non-robust evaluation metrics. Recent subjective benchmarks, such as OwlEval, offer comprehensive evaluations of a model's abilities by incorporating human labor, but they are not scalable and display significant bias. In response to these challenges, we propose MMBench, a new benchmark for assessing multi-modal capabilities of VLMs. MMBench methodically develops a comprehensive evaluation pipeline, primarily comprised of two key features: 1. MMBench is a meticulously curated dataset that surpasses existing similar benchmarks in terms of the number and the variety of evaluation questions and abilities; 2. MMBench introduces a rigorous CircularEval strategy and incorporates the use of ChatGPT to convert free-form predictions into pre-defined choices, thereby facilitating a fair and robust evaluation despite of VLMs' different instruction following capabilities. MMBench is a systematically-designed objective benchmark for robustly evaluating the various abilities of vision-language models. We hope MMBench will assist the research community in better evaluating their models and encourage future advancements in this domain.

Author context

Most prolific author: 14 submissions (credibility 0.71).

Delta if applied: -0.1 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)