REVIEW 7 cited by
Multimodal Needle in a Haystack: Benchmarking Long-Context Capability of Multimodal Large Language Models
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
Multimodal Needle in a Haystack: Benchmarking Long-Context Capability of Multimodal Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown significant promise in various applications, leading to broad interest from researchers and practitioners alike. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their long-context capabilities remains underexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce the MultiModal Needle-in-a-haystack (MMNeedle) benchmark, specifically designed to assess the long-context capabilities of MLLMs. Besides multi-image input, we employ image stitching to further increase the input context length, and develop a protocol to automatically generate labels for sub-image level retrieval. Essentially, MMNeedle evaluates MLLMs by stress-testing their capability to locate a target sub-image (needle) within a set of images (haystack) based on textual instructions and descriptions of image contents. This setup necessitates an advanced understanding of extensive visual contexts and effective information retrieval within long-context image inputs. With this benchmark, we evaluate state-of-the-art MLLMs, encompassing both API-based and open-source models. The findings reveal that GPT-4o consistently surpasses other models in long-context scenarios, but suffers from hallucination problems in negative samples, i.e., when needles are not in the haystacks. Our comprehensive long-context evaluation of MLLMs also sheds lights on the considerable performance gap between API-based and open-source models. All the code, data, and instructions required to reproduce the main results are available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/multimodal-needle-in-a-haystack.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
MemLens: Benchmarking Multimodal Long-Term Memory in Large Vision-Language Models
MemLens benchmark shows long-context LVLMs lose accuracy with length while memory agents lose visual fidelity, with multi-session reasoning below 30% for most systems and neither approach solving the task alone.
-
TS-Haystack: A Multi-Task Retrieval Benchmark for Long-Context Time-Series Reasoning
TS-Haystack benchmark shows time-series language models degrade sharply on long contexts while an agentic retrieval system using classifier tools matches or beats them on 9 of 10 tasks.
-
LingoLoop Attack: Trapping MLLMs via Linguistic Context and State Entrapment into Endless Loops
LingoLoop traps MLLMs into generating up to 367 times more tokens by applying POS-aware attention adjustments to postpone EOS tokens and pruning generative paths to sustain repetitive loops.
-
Where Facts Go Missing: A Layerwise Taxonomy and Per-Layer Attribution of Information Omission in Air-Gapped LLMAgent Pipelines
In a controlled 75,476-trial stress test, about 73% of omitted-fact failures in LLM agent pipelines are traced to deterministic middleware (redaction, pagination, truncation) rather than model behavior.
-
Training Long-Context Vision-Language Models Effectively with Generalization Beyond 128K Context
Continued pre-training with balanced long-document VQA data extends a 7B LVLM to 128K context, improving long-document VQA by 7.1% and generalizing to 512K without further training.
-
TS-Haystack: A Multi-Task Retrieval Benchmark for Long-Context Time-Series Reasoning
Time-series language models lose the ability to locate specific events as context length grows, even while whole-window classification improves.
-
CLBench-V: Evaluating Multimodal Context Learning from Grounding to Knowledge Acquisition
Multimodal context-learning benchmark CLBench-V separates grounding, information application, and knowledge acquisition; the best evaluated model scores 0.2847.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.