Incomplete29%Harbor: pendingMultimodalAbstract Reasoning

REBUS

A Robust Evaluation Benchmark of Understanding Symbols

Recent advances in large language models have led to the development of multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), which take both image data and text as an input.

How to run

ltb · rebus
$ npm i -g lettokenburn-cli
$ ltb bench info rebus

External harness. No Harbor adapter has been generated for this benchmark yet. `ltb bench info` prints the known links.

Runs happen on your machine with your own subscription; only the score summary is pushed. CLI docs

Scores

6 sourced entries
HarnessSourceConfidenceLink
GPT-4V24.0N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org
Gemini Pro13.2N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org
LLaVA-1.5-13B1.8N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org
LLaVA-1.5-7B1.5N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org
CogVLM-Chat0.9N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org
Qwen Max (2025-01-25)0.9N/AIndependentmediumJan 11, 2024arxiv.org

Every number links to where it was published. Low-confidence rows are muted and need per-cell verification.

Reproduced by the community

All runs
Loading community runs…

About

Recent advances in large language models have led to the development of multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), which take both image data and text as an input. Virtually all of these models have been announced within the past year, leading to a significant need for benchmarks evaluating the abilities of these models to reason truthfully and accurately on a diverse set of tasks. When Google announced Gemini (Gemini Team et al., 2023), they showcased its ability to solve rebuses—wordplay puzzles which involve creatively adding and subtracting letters from words derived from text and images. The diversity of rebuses allows for a broad evaluation of multimodal reasoning capabilities, including image recognition, multi- step reasoning, and understanding the human creator’s intent. We present REBUS: a collection of 333 hand-crafted rebuses spanning 13 diverse cate- gories, including hand-drawn and digital images created by nine contributors. Samples are presented in Table 1. Notably, GPT-4V, the most powerful model we evaluated, answered only 24% of puzzles correctly, highlighting the poor capabilities of MLLMs in new and unex- pected domains to which human reasoning generalizes with comparative ease. Open-source models perform even worse, with a median accuracy below 1%. We notice that models often give faithless explanations, fail to change their minds after an initial approach doesn’t work, and remain highly uncalibrated on their own abilities.