Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in open-ended, real-world environments where inputs are messy, underspecified, and not always trustworthy. Unlike curated benchmarks, these settings frequently involve instructions that reference missing objects or contradictory facts, rely on ambiguous cues, or request infeasible actions. In such cases, success hinges not merely on task execution, but on the model’s ability to detect when something is silently wrong. This paper presents a systematic analysis of how current MLLMs handle such underspecified and misspecified scenarios: cases where flaws must be inferred from context rather than explicitly stated. Using a curated diagnostic suite spanning four categories of real-world failure modes, we evaluate nine MLLMs, including o3 and GPT-4o, and find that models often fail to surface hidden issues, even when they possess the necessary perceptual and reasoning skills. Explicit prompting reveals that the underlying capabilities exist but are frequently suppressed in favor of user compliance.We further show that simple inference-time interventions, such as cautious persona prompting and, in particular, requiring a clarifying question, can substantially recover performance. Our findings highlight a persistent gap between reasoning competence and behavioral compliance in current MLLMs, and suggest practical strategies for making these systems more trustworthy in underconstrained environments.

Existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are predominantly trained and tested on consistent visual-textual inputs, leaving open the question of whether they can handle inconsistencies in real-world, layout-rich content. To bridge this gap, we propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR) benchmark to assess MLLMs’ ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches in artifacts such as webpages, presentation slides, and posters. MMIR comprises 534 challenging samples, each containing synthetically injected errors across five reasoning-heavy categories: Factual Contradiction, Identity Misattribution, Contextual Mismatch, Quantitative Discrepancy, and Temporal/Spatial Incoherence. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art MLLMs, showing that models with dedicated multimodal reasoning capabilities, such as o1, substantially outperform their counterparts while open-source models remain particularly vulnerable to inconsistency errors. Detailed error analyses further show that models excel in detecting inconsistencies confined to a single modality, particularly in text, but struggle with cross-modal conflicts and complex layouts. Probing experiments reveal that single-modality prompting, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Set-of-Mark (SoM) methods, yields marginal gains, revealing a key bottleneck in cross-modal reasoning. Our findings highlight the need for advanced multimodal reasoning and point to future research on multimodal inconsistency.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on existing medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA) benchmarks. However, high reported accuracy does not necessarily reflect their true diagnostic reliability in clinical settings. This study reveals that state-of-the-art models perform worse than random guessing on medical diagnosis questions when subjected to simple Probing Evaluation for Medical Diagnosis (ProbMed). ProbMed challenges models through probing evaluation and procedural diagnosis. Particularly, probing evaluation features pairing ground-truth questions with adversarial counterparts that feature negated and hallucinated attributes, while procedural diagnosis requires reasoning across various dimensions for each image, including modality recognition, organ identification, clinical findings, abnormalities, and positional grounding. Our evaluation reveals that even top-performing models like GPT-4o, GPT-4V, and Gemini Pro perform worse than random guessing on specialized diagnostic questions, indicating significant limitations in handling fine-grained medical inquiries. Furthermore, our ablation study on open-source models (e.g., LLaVA, LLaVA-Med, and Med-Flamingo) identifies poor visual understanding as a primary bottleneck—a limitation that can be partially mitigated by incorporating visual descriptions generated by GPT-4o, resulting in an average performance improvement of 9.44%. These findings underscore the urgent need for more robust evaluation methods and domain-specific expertise to ensure the reliability of LMMs in high-stakes medical applications.

Multipanel images, commonly seen as web screenshots, posters, etc., pervade our daily lives. These images, characterized by their composition of multiple subfigures in distinct layouts, effectively convey information to people. Toward building advanced multimodal AI applications, such as agents that understand complex scenes and navigate through webpages, the skill of multipanel visual reasoning is essential, and a comprehensive evaluation of models in this regard is important. Therefore, we introduce Multipanel Visual Question Answering (MultipanelVQA), a novel benchmark comprising 6,600 triplets of questions, answers, and multipanel images that specifically challenge models in comprehending multipanel images. Our evaluation shows that questions in the MultipanelVQA benchmark pose significant challenges to the state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) tested, even though humans can attain approximately 99% accuracy on these questions. Distinctively, the MultipanelVQA benchmark features synthetically generated multipanel images specifically crafted to isolate and assess the impact of various factors, such as the layout, on MLLMs’ multipanel image comprehension abilities. As a result, in addition to benchmarking the capabilities of MLLMs in understanding multipanel images, we analyze various factors of the multipanel image that affect MLLMs’ performance with synthetic data and offer insights for enhancement.