Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

OmnixR: Evaluating Omni-modality Language Models on Reasoning across Modalities

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 2410.12219 v1 pith:4FRD6IBY submitted 2024-10-16 cs.AI cs.CLcs.MM

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

We introduce OmnixR, an evaluation suite designed to benchmark SoTA Omni-modality Language Models, such as GPT-4o and Gemini. Evaluating OLMs, which integrate multiple modalities such as text, vision, and audio, presents unique challenges. Particularly, the user message might often consist of multiple modalities, such that OLMs have to establish holistic understanding and reasoning across modalities to accomplish the task. Existing benchmarks are limited to single modality or dual-modality tasks, overlooking comprehensive multi-modal assessments of model reasoning. To address this, OmnixR offers two evaluation variants: (1)synthetic subset: a synthetic dataset generated automatically by translating text into multiple modalities--audio, images, video, and hybrids (Omnify). (2)realistic subset: a real-world dataset, manually curated and annotated by experts, for evaluating cross-modal reasoning in natural settings. OmnixR presents a unique evaluation towards assessing OLMs over a diverse mix of modalities, such as a question that involves video, audio, and text, providing a rigorous cross-modal reasoning testbed unlike any existing benchmarks. Our experiments find that all state-of-the-art OLMs struggle with OmnixR questions that require integrating information from multiple modalities to answer. Further analysis highlights differences in reasoning behavior, underscoring the challenges of omni-modal AI alignment.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. AVI-Bench: Toward Human-like Audio-Visual Intelligence of Omni-MLLMs

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    AVI-Bench is a cognitively inspired benchmark that evaluates Omni-MLLMs on joint audio-visual tasks and reveals substantial limitations in current models.

  2. TokenSwap: Benchmarking and Reducing the Modality Gap in Multimodal LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    TokenSwap measures and mitigates the MLLM modality gap: swapping textual concepts for matched images lowers accuracy by 4-47% across 42 models, and training with such swaps reduces the gap.

  3. Same Content, Different Answers: Cross-Modal Inconsistency in MLLMs

    cs.AI 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    State-of-the-art MLLMs show substantial inconsistency when reasoning over the same information presented in image, text, or mixed modalities, even after accounting for OCR errors, with inconsistency linked to visual f...

  4. Towards Understanding Modality Interaction in Multimodal Language Models via Partial Information Decomposition

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    PID applied to MLLMs identifies task-specific modality interaction profiles that generalize across models, extend to tri-modal cases, and yield initial performance gains via reweighting.

Pith tools