internvl35-multimodal-eval
InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency — Wang et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.18265, 2025)
What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal large language models across general understanding, complex reasoning, mathematics, OCR, document comprehension, and agentic/GUI interaction tasks.
Datasets
- MMMU — total ?; splits: val (-1)
- MathVista — total ?; splits: mini (-1)
- MMStar — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- MMVet — total ?; splits: test (-1)
Metrics
accuracy (primary) — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly predicted answers out of the total number of instances. Calculated as (correct predictions / total instances) * 100. For benchmarks like MMVet, scores are derived via LLM-as-judge evaluation.
Input / output format
Input: Image or video frames paired with a text prompt/question. For agentic tasks, GUI screenshots or environment states with action instructions.
Output: Text response containing the final answer, reasoning steps, or action sequence.
Scoring recipe
def calculate_accuracy(predictions, gold):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if normalize_answer(p) == g)
return (correct / len(gold)) * 100
# For LLM-as-judge benchmarks (e.g., MMVet):
# score = llm_judge.evaluate(predictions, gold, prompt_template=judge_prompt)
# return score
Common pitfalls
- Benchmark versions vary significantly (e.g., MMBench V1.1 vs V2.0); results are not directly comparable without specifying the exact version.
- MMVet relies on LLM-as-judge scoring, which is highly sensitive to the judge model, version, and prompt template used.
- Agentic benchmarks (e.g., OSWorld-G, ScreenSpot) require interactive environment execution, not just static QA generation.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
To comprehensively evaluate the multimodal reasoning and mathematical capabilities of InternVL3.5, we conduct extensive experiments across a series of benchmarks, including MMMU for multidisciplinary reasoning, MathVista, MathVision, and MathVerse for mathematical reasoning... The overall score is the average score of all benchmarks.
Citation
@misc{wang2025internvl35,
title={InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency},
author={Wang et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2508.18265}
}
1---2name: internvl35-multimodal-eval3description: Evaluates multimodal large language models across general understanding, complex reasoning, mathematics, OCR, document comprehension, and agentic/GUI interaction tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MMMU, MathVista, MMStar, MMVet, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.4---56# internvl35-multimodal-eval78> InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency — Wang et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.18265, 2025)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates multimodal large language models across general understanding, complex reasoning, mathematics, OCR, document comprehension, and agentic/GUI interaction tasks.1314## Datasets1516- **MMMU** — total ?; splits: val (-1)17- **MathVista** — total ?; splits: mini (-1)18- **MMStar** — total ?; splits: test (-1)19- **MMVet** — total ?; splits: test (-1)2021## Metrics2223- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent24 - Percentage of correctly predicted answers out of the total number of instances. Calculated as (correct predictions / total instances) * 100. For benchmarks like MMVet, scores are derived via LLM-as-judge evaluation.2526## Input / output format2728**Input**: Image or video frames paired with a text prompt/question. For agentic tasks, GUI screenshots or environment states with action instructions.2930**Output**: Text response containing the final answer, reasoning steps, or action sequence.3132## Scoring recipe3334```python35def calculate_accuracy(predictions, gold):36 correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if normalize_answer(p) == g)37 return (correct / len(gold)) * 1003839# For LLM-as-judge benchmarks (e.g., MMVet):40# score = llm_judge.evaluate(predictions, gold, prompt_template=judge_prompt)41# return score42```4344## Common pitfalls4546- Benchmark versions vary significantly (e.g., MMBench V1.1 vs V2.0); results are not directly comparable without specifying the exact version.47- MMVet relies on LLM-as-judge scoring, which is highly sensitive to the judge model, version, and prompt template used.48- Agentic benchmarks (e.g., OSWorld-G, ScreenSpot) require interactive environment execution, not just static QA generation.4950## Evidence (verbatim from paper)5152> To comprehensively evaluate the multimodal reasoning and mathematical capabilities of InternVL3.5, we conduct extensive experiments across a series of benchmarks, including MMMU for multidisciplinary reasoning, MathVista, MathVision, and MathVerse for mathematical reasoning... The overall score is the average score of all benchmarks.5354## Citation5556```bibtex57@misc{wang2025internvl35,58 title={InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency},59 author={Wang et al. (2025)},60 year={2025},61 note={arXiv:2508.18265}62}63```6465- arXiv: 2508.18265