# MMPCBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models on Proactive Critique of Flawed Inputs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29286 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29286/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 17 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- 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, 17 of 17)

- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14008/) (2024)
- [Measuring Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with MATH-Vision Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14804/) (2024)
- [MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02813/) (2024)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [Can MLLMs Reason in Multimodality? EMMA: An Enhanced MultiModal ReAsoning Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05444/) (2025)
- [A Survey on (M)LLM-Based GUI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13865/) (2025)
- [Missing Premise exacerbates Overthinking: Are Reasoning Models losing Critical Thinking Skill?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06514/) (2025)
- [ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04509/) (2024)
- [PRACTIQ: A Practical Conversational Text-to-SQL dataset with Ambiguous and Unanswerable Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11076/) (2024)
- [MoHoBench: Assessing Honesty of Multimodal Large Language Models via Unanswerable Visual Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21503/) (2025)
- [Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23715/) (2025)
- [Beyond Passive Critical Thinking: Fostering Proactive Questioning to Enhance Human-AI Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23407/) (2025)
- [Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04017/) (2025)
- [Mis-prompt: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Proactive Error Handling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00064/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evolve into sophisticated interactive assistants, their reliability depends not only on following instructions but also on validating them. We define Proactive Critique as the model's autonomous ability to identify, analyze and fix faulty user inputs without extra prompts. However, evaluations mainly test models under ideal circumstances or simple refusal behaviors, largely ignoring active error processing. To fill this gap, we propose MMPCBench, a comprehensive framework for evaluating MLLMs' proactive critique competence. It features a fine-grained taxonomy of 4 primary error types spanning 12 subcategories, ranging from cross-modal contradictions to missing visual premises. We adopt a hierarchical evaluation protocol to measure models' error detection, diagnosis and resolution performance, and apply alignment-aware metrics to assess the coherence between internal reasoning and final responses. Tests on 14 mainstream MLLMs show obvious weaknesses in proactive critique, especially in dealing with subtle visual anomalies. Notably, we identify a pervasive "consistency gap": reasoning models can often correctly identify and analyze errors during internal reasoning yet suppress these valid insights in final outputs to prioritize response compliance. The code and data is available at https://github.com/ALIENS32/MMPCBench.