Papers › A Survey on Benchmarks of Multimodal Large Language Models

A Survey on Benchmarks of Multimodal Large Language Models

16 Aug 2024arXiv:2408.08632archive 2025-07-28

Jian Li, Weiheng Lu, Hao Fei, Meng Luo, Ming Dai, Min Xia, Yizhang Jin, Zhenye Gan, Ding Qi, Chaoyou Fu, Ying Tai, Wankou Yang, Yabiao Wang, Chengjie Wang

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry due to their remarkable performance in various applications such as visual question answering, visual perception, understanding, and reasoning. Over the past few years, significant efforts have been made to examine MLLMs from multiple perspectives. This paper presents a comprehensive review of 200 benchmarks and evaluations for MLLMs, focusing on (1)perception and understanding, (2)cognition and reasoning, (3)specific domains, (4)key capabilities, and (5)other modalities. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the current evaluation methods for MLLMs and explore promising future directions. Our key argument is that evaluation should be regarded as a crucial discipline to support the development of MLLMs better. For more details, please visit our GitHub repository: https://github.com/swordlidev/Evaluation-Multimodal-LLMs-Survey.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

swordlidev/evaluation-multimodal-llms-survey officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Question AnsweringSurveyVisual Question Answering

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections