Large Vision–Language Models (LVLMs) increasingly rely on retrieval to answer knowledge-intensive multimodal questions. Existing benchmarks overlook conflicts between visual and textual evidence and the importance of generating deflections (e.g., "Sorry, I cannot answer...") when retrieved knowledge is incomplete. These benchmarks also suffer from rapid obsolescence, as growing LVLM training sets allow models to answer many questions without retrieval. We address these gaps with three contributions. First, we propose a dynamic data curation pipeline that preserves benchmark difficulty over time by filtering for genuinely retrieval-dependent samples. Second, we introduce VLM-DeflectionBench, a benchmark of 2,775 samples spanning diverse multimodal retrieval settings, designed to probe model behaviour under conflicting or insufficient evidence. Third, we define a fine-grained evaluation protocol with four scenarios that disentangle parametric memorization from retrieval robustness. Experiments across 20 state-of-the-art LVLMs indicate that models usually fail to deflect in the presence of noisy or misleading evidence. Our results highlight the need to evaluate not only what models know, but how they behave when they do not, and serve as a reusable and extensible benchmark for reliable KB-VQA evaluation. All resources will be publicly available upon publication.

Connecting text and visual modalities plays an essential role in generative intelligence. For this reason, inspired by the success of large language models, significant research efforts are being devoted to the development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). These models can seamlessly integrate visual and textual modalities, while providing a dialogue-based interface and instruction-following capabilities. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of recent visual-based MLLMs, analyzing their architectural choices, multimodal alignment strategies, and training techniques. We also conduct a detailed analysis of these models across a wide range of tasks, including visual grounding, image generation and editing, visual understanding, and domain-specific applications. Additionally, we compile and describe training datasets and evaluation benchmarks, conducting comparisons among existing models in terms of performance and computational requirements. Overall, this survey offers a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art, laying the groundwork for future MLLMs.