RPTS: Tree-Structured Reasoning Process Scoring for Faithful Multimodal Evaluation
Haofeng Wang, Yu Zhang
Abstract
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) excel in multimodal reasoning and have shown impressive performance on various multimodal benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks evaluate models primarily through multiple-choice or short-answer formats, which do not take the reasoning process into account. Although some benchmarks assess the reasoning process, their methods are often overly simplistic and only examine reasoning when answers are incorrect. This approach overlooks scenarios where flawed reasoning leads to correct answers. In addition, these benchmarks do not consider the impact of intermodal relationships on reasoning. To address this issue, we propose the Reasoning Process Tree Score (RPTS), a tree structure-based metric to assess reasoning processes. Specifically, we organize the reasoning steps into a reasoning tree and leverage its hierarchical information to assign weighted faithfulness scores to each reasoning step. By dynamically adjusting these weights, RPTS not only evaluates the overall correctness of the reasoning, but also pinpoints where the model fails in the reasoning. To validate RPTS in real-world multimodal scenarios, we construct a new benchmark, RPTS-Eval, comprising 374 images and 390 reasoning instances. Each instance includes reliable visual-textual clues that serve as leaf nodes of the reasoning tree. Furthermore, we define three types of intermodal relationships to investigate how intermodal interactions influence the reasoning process. We evaluated representative LVLMs (e.g., GPT4o, Llava-Next), uncovering their limitations in multimodal reasoning and highlighting the differences between open-source and closed-source commercial LVLMs. We believe that this benchmark will contribute to the advancement of research in the field of multimodal reasoning.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 52206c2b-5dcc-4f81-8aa1-ab3db10f025cBuilds on10
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction TuningWenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 4,013 citations
- MM-Vet: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models for Integrated CapabilitiesWeihao Yu, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang et al.ICML 2024 · 1,191 citations
- G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations
- Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?David Cheng-Han Chiang, Hung-yi LeeACL 2023 · 254 citations
Related papers
- VLRMBench: A Comprehensive and Challenging Benchmark for Vision-Language Reward ModelsJiacheng Ruan, Wenzhen Yuan, Xiqi Gao, Ye Guo et al.ICCV 2025 · 22 citations
- ViLBench: A Suite for Vision-Language Process Reward ModelingHaoqin Tu, Weitao Feng, Hardy Chen, Hui Liu et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- VRBench: A Benchmark for Multi-Step Reasoning in Long Narrative VideosJiashuo Yu, Yue Wu, Meng Chu, Zhifei Ren et al.ICCV 2025 · 3 citations
- When Visualizing is the First Step to Reasoning: MIRA, a Benchmark for Visual Chain-of-ThoughtYiyang Zhou, Haoqin Tu, Zijun Wang, Zeyu Wang et al.CVPR 2026 · 17 citations
- VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical ReasoningNilay Yilmaz, Maitreya Patel, Yiran Lawrence Luo, Tejas Gokhale et al.ICLR 2025
