arXiv:2606. 26079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines.
By Akshay Paruchuri, Sanmi Koyejo, Ehsan Adeli
The paper demonstrates that multiple‑choice visual question answering (MC‑VQA) benchmarks are unreliable because model performance is highly sensitive to semantically neutral prompt formatting choices—such as option ID sets, delimiters, and separators—despite protocols that mitigate option‑order effects. Across seven multimodal large language models and five datasets, the authors observed frequent rank reversals when systematically varying 48 equivalent prompt formats, attributing the instability to tokenizer‑induced token fusion or removal and to how option ID sets influence attention patterns. Consequently, MC‑VQA rankings correlate weakly with open‑ended evaluation, revealing that MC‑VQA reflects option‑selection dynamics as well as multimodal reasoning.
By Fabio Rosenthal, Sebastian Schmidt, Thorsten Graf, Thorsten Bagdonat, Stephan G\"unnemann, Leo Schwinn
arXiv:2608.28316v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Static importance scores compress visual evidence into a single ranking, but the value of remaining evidence can change after one cue has been observed...
By Yunxuan Fang, Xinhe Wang
We find that vision-language models are sensitive to a specific semantically irrelevant change: the order in which the image and question are presented. Across three models and three benchmarks, image first prompting consistently outperforms question-first prompting, revealing a repeatable modality order failure.
arXiv:2606. 16682v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When AI agents use language models to evaluate their own outputs in a feedback loop, systematic biases emerge.
By Zewen Liu
arXiv:2605. 18852v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Selecting a final checkpoint for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is challenging when late-stage candidates are closely matched and downstream evaluation signals are noisy.
By Qinwu Xu, Zhuoheng Li, Jessie Salas