Papers › M³R-Bench: A Unified Benchmark for Evidence-Grounded Multimodal Metaphor Understanding
M³R-Bench: A Unified Benchmark for Evidence-Grounded Multimodal Metaphor Understanding
Hong Jiang, Junnan Zhu, Jingwang Huang, Xiao Sun, Yuming Yang, Jiang Zhong, Ruirui Chen, Jingman Shi, Hao Wu, Nayu Liu, Xinyi Jiang, Kaiwen Wei
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Metaphor enables the understanding of abstract concepts through cross-domain mappings while conveying affective attitudes. In multimodal scenarios, visual and textual information jointly construct Target--Source mappings, requiring both conceptual understanding and cross-modal reasoning. However, existing benchmarks mainly evaluate metaphor understanding through isolated subtasks and lack evidence-grounded explanations, making it difficult to assess whether models establish mappings grounded in visual and textual cues.To address these limitations, we introduce M³R-Bench, a unified and evidence-grounded benchmark containing 1,000 image--text instances with human-verified annotations. Guided by Conceptual Metaphor Theory and theories of nonliteral language understanding, M³R-Bench provides joint annotations for metaphor occurrence, Target--Source mapping, sentiment, and stage-wise explanations following ``evidence identification--mapping establishment--sentiment inference.''Evaluations on M³R-Bench reveal that existing models often overlook visual evidence, rely on superficial textual cues, and produce inaccurate Target--Source mappings, exposing a cross-modal evidence--mapping mismatch. To address this mismatch, we propose M³R-Reasoner, which combines curriculum-based reasoning supervision with task-aware reinforcement learning to align model reasoning with metaphor interpretation. Experiments show that, with only an 8B-parameter backbone, M³R-Reasoner outperforms larger proprietary MLLMs across four unified-task metrics and improves Visual Evidence and Sentiment Justification scores over GPT-5.5 by 28.45 and 30.11 points, respectively, while surpassing Claude-Sonnet-4.6 by 8.00 points in mean rubric score. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/hongshi4/M3R-Bench.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.05817")
Code
Syntology Ran 11 of 19 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 8 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran · honoured contract; 7 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 19 samples from 1 repository, 11 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
19 samples harvested; 11 ran; 4 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 19 of the 19 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from hongshi4/M3R-Bench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4ad6893bf243ea62 · report
587120ada5472479 · report
bc11bcbfa86ea6fa · report
7a14bf9ad1641a70 · report
360c0e103fec2df2 · report
91d41bf0e964ab37 · report
2b9ad881f4f0c4ac · report
d86a6278a5fa4719 · report
e0424dca2327d2d1 · report
75c7f5eb54d1bf26 · report
dfe8c3274ebf6845 · report
d8290d55cb94e8ac · report
6dca219cd255758b · report
0721c5ed2c65e6f9 · report
9f2642d0e6d43328 · report
3997ce670bde6bd0 · report
339b07d077ab5b4b · report
43f8cd294065c034 · report
29d61385ce4338cf · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.05817, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
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