# CulMind: Benchmarking Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning in Chinese Cultural Heritage

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21618 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21618/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Jun 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, 9 of 9)

- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18265/) (2025)
- [GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.1V-Thinking: Towards Versatile Multimodal Reasoning with Scalable Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01006/) (2025)
- [CMMMU: A Chinese Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.11944/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Vision-Language Models on Chinese Ancient Documents: From OCR to Knowledge Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09731/) (2025)
- [C3Bench: A Comprehensive Classical Chinese Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17732/) (2024)
- [CArtBench: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Chinese Art Understanding, Interpretation, and Authenticity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.11632/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in Chinese Cultural Heritage (CCH) requires fine-grained reasoning over visual, textual, stylistic, and historical clues. However, existing CCH benchmarks mainly emphasize final-answer accuracy, while the accuracy and completeness of reasoning processes remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce CulMind and CulMind-R: a high-quality benchmark for multimodal CCH covering 50 tasks from collections of more than 100 museums, and a 24-task reasoning subset that adaptively defines task-specific dimensions for reasoning process evaluation. To evaluate reasoning quality, we propose ReaScore, a task-adaptive metric that evaluates reasoning by automatically weighting task-relevant dimensions. Experiments on 14 leading MLLMs reveal a substantial gap between answers and reasoning, especially on challenging tasks. Further analysis shows that task-adaptive dimension selection and weighting better align evaluation results with expert judgments. Overall, our benchmark and metric support a more expert-aligned assessment of CCH understanding and offer a transferable reference for broader evaluations of cultural heritage. We publicly release the data, code, and evaluation scripts at https://github.com/ZevTsao/CulMind to facilitate reproducible research.