What it measures

~3,000 multimodal questions across 20 fine-grained perception and reasoning dimensions evaluated with circular option permutation.

Reading the measurement

Study what information the model receives and which inference the answer requires. A question may mix recall, visual perception, deduction and search. Use task breakdowns to find the mechanism behind a headline gain.

Published evaluation

MMBench test CircularEval; MMBench · CircularEval test protocol. The source’s task split, model configuration and scoring units are retained.

Where this fits in an evaluation suite

Ask what the task actually requires: recall, deduction, search, or a mixture. Separate closed-book reasoning from retrieval and tool-assisted problem solving.

Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.

A reproducible comparison

MMBench test CircularEval; MMBench · CircularEval test protocol. The source’s task split, model configuration and scoring units are retained.

Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING

  1. MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player? — published result table ↗

    Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Wangbo Zhao et al. · 2023

    All 12 authors

    Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Wangbo Zhao, Yike Yuan, Jiaqi Wang, Conghui He, Ziwei Liu, Kai Chen, Dahua Lin

Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.