# ConfProBench: A Confidence Evaluation Benchmark for MLLM-Based Process Judges

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04576 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04576/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 16 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [MLLM training and visual instruction tuning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/mllm-training-and-visual-instruction-tuning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [MiniCPM-V: A GPT-4V Level MLLM on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.01800/) (2024)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [MathVerse: Does Your Multi-modal LLM Truly See the Diagrams in Visual Math Problems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14624/) (2024)
- [MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04788/) (2024)
- [VisualPRM: An Effective Process Reward Model for Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10291/) (2025)
- [MME-CoT: Benchmarking Chain-of-Thought in Large Multimodal Models for Reasoning Quality, Robustness, and Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09621/) (2025)
- [On Verbalized Confidence Scores for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14737/) (2024)
- [ChemVLM: Exploring the Power of Multimodal Large Language Models in Chemistry Area](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.07246/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Mathematical Reasoning in the Era of Multimodal Large Language Model: Benchmark, Method & Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11936/) (2024)
- [MM-MATH: Advancing Multimodal Math Evaluation with Process Evaluation and Fine-grained Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05091/) (2024)
- [Judge Anything: MLLM as a Judge Across Any Modality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.17489/) (2025)
- [MPBench: A Comprehensive Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark for Process Errors Identification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.12505/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning for Enhanced Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11665/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reasoning is a critical capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for solving complex multimodal tasks, and judging the correctness of reasoning steps is crucial for improving this capability. Recently, MLLM-based process judges (MPJs) have been widely used to assess the correctness of reasoning steps in multimodal tasks. Therefore, evaluating MPJs is important for identifying their limitations and guiding future improvements. However, existing benchmarks for MPJs mainly focus on tasks such as step correctness classification and reasoning process search, while overlooking a key aspect: whether the confidence scores produced by MPJs at the step level are reliable. To address this gap, we propose ConfProBench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the reliability of step-level confidence scores generated by MPJs. Our benchmark constructs three types of adversarially perturbed reasoning steps: Synonym Substitution, Syntactic Transformation, and Image Perturbation, to test the robustness of MPJ confidence under perturbations. In addition, we introduce three novel evaluation metrics: Confidence Robustness Score (CRS), Confidence Sensitivity Score (CSS), and Confidence Calibration Score (CCS), which evaluate robustness, sensitivity, and calibration, respectively. We evaluate 14 state-of-the-art MLLMs, including both proprietary and open-source models. Experiments reveal limitations in current MPJs' confidence performance and offer competitive baselines to support future research.