# AMVICC: A Novel Benchmark for Cross-Modal Failure Mode Profiling for VLMs and IGMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17037 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17037/

## 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 20 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [A Survey on Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13549/) (2023)
- [Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06209/) (2024)
- [VILA: On Pre-training for Visual Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07533/) (2023)
- [T2I-CompBench++: An Enhanced and Comprehensive Benchmark for Compositional Text-to-image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.06350/) (2023)
- [Smaug: Fixing Failure Modes of Preference Optimisation with DPO-Positive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13228/) (2024)
- [CogVLM2: Visual Language Models for Image and Video Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.16500/) (2024)
- [VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15279/) (2025)
- [Defending Against Unforeseen Failure Modes with Latent Adversarial Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05030/) (2024)
- [Enhancing Visual-Language Modality Alignment in Large Vision Language Models via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15973/) (2024)
- [Survey of Bias In Text-to-Image Generation: Definition, Evaluation, and Mitigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01030/) (2024)
- [Commonsense-T2I Challenge: Can Text-to-Image Generation Models Understand Commonsense?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07546/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Diffusion Based Image Generation Models: Issues and Their Solutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13142/) (2023)
- [MediConfusion: Can you trust your AI radiologist? Probing the reliability of multimodal medical foundation models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15477/) (2024)
- [On the Limitations of Vision-Language Models in Understanding Image Transforms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09837/) (2025)
- [Diffusion Beats Autoregressive: An Evaluation of Compositional Generation in Text-to-Image Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22775/) (2024)

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

- [AirGroundBench: Probing Spatial Intelligence in Multimodal Large Models under Heterogeneous Multi-View Embodied Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28049/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We investigate visual reasoning limitations of both multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and image generation models (IGMs) by creating a novel benchmark to systematically compare failure modes across image-to-text and text-to-image tasks, enabling cross-modal evaluation of visual understanding. Despite rapid growth in machine learning, vision language models (VLMs) still fail to understand basic visual concepts such as object orientation, quantity, and spatial relationships, which highlights gaps in elementary visual reasoning. By adapting MMVP benchmark questions into explicit and implicit prompts, we create textitAMVICC, a novel benchmark for profiling failure modes across various modalities. After testing 11 MLLMs and 3 IGMs in 9 categories of visual reasoning, our results show that failure modes are often shared between models and modalities. However, certain failures are model-specific and modality-specific, and this can potentially be attributed to various factors. IGMs consistently struggle to manipulate specific visual components in response to prompts, especially in explicit prompts, suggesting poor control over fine-grained visual attributes. Our findings apply most directly to the evaluation of existing state-of-the-art models on structured visual reasoning tasks. This work lays the foundation for future cross-modal alignment studies, offering a framework to probe whether image generation and visual interpretation failures stem from shared limitations. These insights can guide future improvements in unified vision-language modeling.