Papers › MMRA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multi-Granularity and Multi-Image Relational...
MMRA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multi-Granularity and Multi-Image Relational Association Capabilities in Large Visual Language Models
Siwei Wu, Kang Zhu, Yu Bai, Yiming Liang, Yizhi Li, HaoNing Wu, J. H. Liu, Ruibo Liu, Xingwei Qu, Xuxin Cheng, Ge Zhang, Wenhao Huang, Chenghua Lin
Given the remarkable success that large visual language models (LVLMs) have achieved in image perception tasks, the endeavor to make LVLMs perceive the world like humans is drawing increasing attention. Current multi-modal benchmarks primarily focus on facts or specific topic-related knowledge contained within individual images. However, they often overlook the associative relations between multiple images, which require the identification and analysis of similarities among entities or content present in different images. Therefore, we propose the multi-image relation association task and a meticulously curated Multi-granularity Multi-image Relational Association (MMRA) benchmark, comprising 1,024 samples. In order to systematically and comprehensively evaluate current LVLMs, we establish an associational relation system among images that contain 11 subtasks (e.g, UsageSimilarity, SubEvent) at two granularity levels (i.e., image and entity) according to the relations in ConceptNet. Our experiments reveal that on the MMRA benchmark, current multi-image LVLMs exhibit distinct advantages and disadvantages across various subtasks. Notably, fine-grained, entity-level multi-image perception tasks pose a greater challenge for LVLMs compared to image-level tasks. Moreover, LVLMs perform poorly on spatial-related tasks, indicating that LVLMs still have limited spatial awareness. Additionally, our findings indicate that while LVLMs demonstrate a strong capability to perceive image details, enhancing their ability to associate information across multiple images hinges on improving the reasoning capabilities of their language model component. Moreover, we explored the ability of LVLMs to perceive image sequences within the context of our multi-image association task. Our experiments show that the majority of current LVLMs do not adequately model image sequences during the pre-training process.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
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="2407.17379")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has 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: 3 of the 3 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 wusiwei0410/mmra. “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.
ffed60ad6f626529 · report
328b134fb56d3c6e · report
69c5cfea01bac130 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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