Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

MLLM-CompBench: A Comparative Reasoning Benchmark for Multimodal LLMs

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 2407.16837 v2 pith:T6C2XQJQ submitted 2024-07-23 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CL
keywords comparativemllm-compbenchcapabilitymllmspairsbenchmarkcomparingevaluate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The ability to compare objects, scenes, or situations is crucial for effective decision-making and problem-solving in everyday life. For instance, comparing the freshness of apples enables better choices during grocery shopping while comparing sofa designs helps optimize the aesthetics of our living space. Despite its significance, the comparative capability is largely unexplored in artificial general intelligence (AGI). In this paper, we introduce MLLM-CompBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the comparative reasoning capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). MLLM-CompBench mines and pairs images through visually oriented questions covering eight dimensions of relative comparison: visual attribute, existence, state, emotion, temporality, spatiality, quantity, and quality. We curate a collection of around 40K image pairs using metadata from diverse vision datasets and CLIP similarity scores. These image pairs span a broad array of visual domains, including animals, fashion, sports, and both outdoor and indoor scenes. The questions are carefully crafted to discern relative characteristics between two images and are labeled by human annotators for accuracy and relevance. We use MLLM-CompBench to evaluate recent MLLMs, including GPT-4V(ision), Gemini-Pro, and LLaVA-1.6. Our results reveal notable shortcomings in their comparative abilities. We believe MLLM-COMPBENCH not only sheds light on these limitations but also establishes a solid foundation for future enhancements in the comparative capability of MLLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MedBookVQA: A Systematic and Comprehensive Medical Benchmark Derived from Open-Access Book

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MedBookVQA is a new 5,000-question, textbook-derived multimodal benchmark for testing medical AI systems, with labels for imaging modality, body anatomy, and clinical specialty.

  2. On the rankability of visual embeddings

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Visual embeddings from CLIP and other vision encoders encode ordinal attributes along linear directions, recoverable from as few as two extreme reference images, without full supervision.

  3. Detecting Hope, Hate, and Emotion in Arabic Textual Speech and Multi-modal Memes Using Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The submission cannot be reviewed as a coherent paper: its abstract and full text are two different papers, so the abstract's claims have no supporting body.

Pith tools