Cited by 443Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdvanced Neural Network Applications

MMMU: A Massive Multi-Discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI

Open access
Yue, Xiang, Ni, Yuansheng, Zheng, Tianyu, Zhang, Kai, Liu, Ruoqi, Zhang, Ge, Stevens, Samuel, Jiang, Dongfu +14 more·2024·2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

We introduce MMMU: a new benchmark designed to evaluate multimodal models on massive multi-discipline tasks demanding college-level subject knowledge and deliberate reasoning. MMMU includes 11.5K meticulously collected multimodal questions from college exams, quizzes, and text-books, covering six core disciplines: Art & Design, Busi-ness, Science, Health & Medicine, Humanities & Social Science, and Tech & Engineering. These questions span 30 subjects and 183 subfields, comprising 30 highly het-erogeneous image types, such as charts, diagrams, maps, tables, music sheets, and chemical structures. Unlike existing benchmarks, MMMU focuses on advanced perception and reasoning with domain-specific knowledge, challenging models to perform tasks akin to those faced by experts. The evaluation of 28 open-source LMMs as well as the propri-etary GPT-4V(ision) and Gemini highlights the substantial challenges posed by MMMU. Even the advanced GPT-4V and Gemini Ultra only achieve accuracies of 56% and 59% respectively, indicating significant room for improvement. We believe MMMU will stimulate the community to build next-generation multimodal foundation models towards expert artificial general intelligence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.00913

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Open-source models such as Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct and Llama-4-Maverick perform far worse on SPOT than proprietary models, despite matching them on existing multi-modal benchmarks like MMMU or MathVista.

    “Surprisingly, open-source models such as Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct and Llama-4-Maverick, which match proprietary models on existing multi-modal benchmarks like MMMU [49] or MathVista [50], perform far worse on SPOT.”
  • Self-explanations are a prevailing approach for understanding LLM-generated responses and are widely used in analyzing language model behavior.

    “Self-explanations are a prevailing approach on par with traditional model explanations like LIME saliency maps [71] for understanding LLM-generated responses [25, 32, 53] and are widely used in analyzing language model behavior [66, 99].”

    From Thinking in Space: How Multimodal Large Language Models See, Remember, and Recall Spaces (2025) · cites this paper as [99]

    Section 5, “Error Analysis and Future Work” (page unavailable), describes expert annotators examining GPT-4V predictions using their knowledge and gold explanations where available. Section 4.1 discusses extracting answers from responses that may contain reasoning steps. Neither passage establishes that model-generated self-explanations are a prevailing or widely used approach to analyzing language-model behavior (searched: self-explanation and model-generated explanations). (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Zhong Muyan, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation mod- els and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14238, 2023. 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 · arXiv
  2. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2021. 3
  3. Ehsan Latif, Gengchen Mai, Matthew Nyaaba, Xuansheng Wu, Ninghao Liu, Guoyu Lu, Sheng Li, Tianming Liu, and Xiaoming Zhai. Artificial general intelligence (agi) for edu- cation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12479, 2023. 1 · arXiv
  4. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, 2023. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
  5. Ji Lin, Hongxu Yin, Wei Ping, Yao Lu, Pavlo Molchanov, Andrew Tao, Huizi Mao, Jan Kautz, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Song Han. Vila: On pre-training for visual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07533, 2023. 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 · arXiv
  6. Fuxiao Liu, Kevin Lin, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang, Yaser Yacoob, and Lijuan Wang. Aligning large multi-modal model with robust instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14565, 2023. 3 · arXiv
  7. Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Jiacheng Liu, Chunyuan Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Hao Cheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. Mathvista: Evaluating mathemat- ical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02255, 2023. 3 · arXiv
  8. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 1, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yue, X., Ni, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, K., Liu, R., Zhang, G., Stevens, S., Jiang, D., Ren, W., Sun, Y., Wei, C., Yu, B., Yuan, R., Sun, R., Yin, M., Zheng, B., Yang, Z., Liu, Y., Huang, W., Sun, H., Su, Y., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
  • IN. AI Research
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Independent
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Princeton University
  • University of Victoria (CA)
Venue
2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2024-06-16
Pages
9556-9567
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402716477
Cited by
429
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 213 · 2025: 175 · 2024: 41
FWCI
88.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
multimodal benchmark, large language models, domain knowledge, visual reasoning, charts and diagrams, GPT-4V, multimodal foundation models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review