A new 1,430-item multimodal benchmark shows that leading multimodal LLMs rarely notice small visual traps needed for commonsense safety reasoning, with top scores near 0.46 on a scale whose maximum is about 0.97.
MindBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Mind Map Structure Recognition and Analysis
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLM) have made significant progress in the field of document analysis. Despite this, existing benchmarks typically focus only on extracting text and simple layout information, neglecting the complex interactions between elements in structured documents such as mind maps and flowcharts. To address this issue, we introduce the new benchmark named MindBench, which not only includes meticulously constructed bilingual authentic or synthetic images, detailed annotations, evaluation metrics and baseline models, but also specifically designs five types of structured understanding and parsing tasks. These tasks include full parsing, partial parsing, position-related parsing, structured Visual Question Answering (VQA), and position-related VQA, covering key areas such as text recognition, spatial awareness, relationship discernment, and structured parsing. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the substantial potential and significant room for improvement in current models' ability to handle structured document information. We anticipate that the launch of MindBench will significantly advance research and application development in structured document analysis technology. MindBench is available at: https://miasanlei.github.io/MindBench.github.io/.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CV 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Argus Inspection: Do Multimodal Large Language Models Possess the Eye of Panoptes?
A new 1,430-item multimodal benchmark shows that leading multimodal LLMs rarely notice small visual traps needed for commonsense safety reasoning, with top scores near 0.46 on a scale whose maximum is about 0.97.