Auditing VLM Benchmarks from Existing Evaluation Runs
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning also fits: Chart understanding and anomaly detection
Abstract (arXiv)
Every evaluation run of a vision-language model (VLM) already produces per-question artifacts (predictions, judged correctness, metadata) that leaderboards reduce to a single score and then discard. We reuse those artifacts to audit the benchmark itself, and add an audit layer to VLMEvalKit: six detectors that run as post-processing over saved outputs, plus one additional text-only rerun with visual inputs removed, emitting a per-question report. The layer reports per-question findings together with aggregate audit statistics; for the headline quantities, it attaches permutation-null excess where applicable, interval estimates for proportions, and sensitivity to the model pool. Auditing MMStar, a benchmark curated specifically so that the image is indispensable, with three models, we find zero aggregate accuracy gain from the image on 20.2% of its questions. An item-matched permutation null accounts for 17.0%, leaving a +3.2 pp excess (corrected permutation p = 0.001). This excess is concentrated in the mathematics and science categories and is absent from coarse perception, a localization consistent with knowledge substituting for visual evidence; confirming that mechanism would require item-level review. A second detector flags 134 questions on which every model that answered in parseable form picked the same non-gold option, and these candidates peak in the perception categories, whereas the zero-gain excess is largest in mathematics and science & technology. Replacing the LLM judge with exact string matching changes no conclusion, and every scoring discrepancy between the two traces to one model whose free-form answers a parser cannot read. On a binary yes/no benchmark the detectors measurably fall out of calibration, a scope boundary that we measure and report. The audit layer, the prediction artifacts and the generated reports accompany this submission.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 20 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.
Builds on
20 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark9 Jun
- 2024NaturalBench: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Natural Adversarial Samples18 Oct
- 2024Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating Large Vision-Language Models?29 Mar
Other references · 17
- 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,516
- 2023MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?cited by 2,141
- 2023HallusionBench: An Advanced Diagnostic Suite for Entangled Language Hallucination and Visual Illusion in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 583
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2024VLMEvalKit: An Open-Source Toolkit for Evaluating Large Multi-Modality Modelscited by 455
- 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 395
- 2024LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Modelscited by 353
- 2024Are We Done with MMLU?cited by 194
- 2025Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability?cited by 54
- 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
- 2025Redundancy Principles for MLLMs Benchmarkscited by 19
- 2024MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluationcited by 18
5 more
- 2025Fantastic Bugs and Where to Find Them in AI Benchmarkscited by 11
- 2024Both Text and Images Leaked! A Systematic Analysis of Data Contamination in Multimodal LLMcited by 10
- 2026DatBench: Discriminative, Faithful, and Efficient VLM Evaluationscited by 10
- 2025Information Density Principle for MLLM Benchmarkscited by 9
- 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarkscited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Visually Prompted Benchmarks Are Surprisingly Fragile
- 2026Evian: Towards Explainable Visual Instruction-tuning Data Auditing
- 2026Seeing Isn't Believing: Uncovering Blind Spots in Evaluator Vision-Language Models
- 2026Composition, Not Conversation: VLMs Lose the Scene, Not the Thread
- 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?
- 2025Revisiting Data Auditing in Large Vision-Language Models
- 2024Prometheus-Vision: Vision-Language Model as a Judge for Fine-Grained Evaluation
- 2026SABRE: Scalable and Automated Benchmarking of VLMs under Stress