Overview
The benchmark is practical and reproducible (code/data links), but model gaps and dataset biases mean results should guide targeted improvements, not final deployment decisions.
Citations52
Evidence Strength0.80
Confidence0.80
Risk Signals8
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 6/6
Findings with evidence refs: 6/6
Results with explicit delta: 1/7
Reproducibility
Status: Code + data available
Open source: Partial
At A Glance
Cost impact: 30%
Production readiness: 40%
Novelty: 45%
Why It Matters For Business
SEED-Bench gives a large, objective test to reveal real weaknesses in multimodal models (OCR, spatial relations, temporal reasoning), so businesses should validate models on similar slices before deploying image/video features.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
SEED-Bench is a large objective benchmark for multimodal LLMs. It provides 19K human-verified multiple-choice questions across 12 spatial and temporal dimensions (images + videos). Questions are generated with foundation models and ChatGPT/GPT-4, automatically filtered (5.52% removed) and human-checked. The authors evaluate 18 models and find most models score below 50% average; InstructBLIP leads (~53% overall) but gaps remain on fine-grained spatial relations, OCR, and temporal reasoning. The repo and leaderboard are public.
Problem Statement
Existing multimodal evaluations are small, subjective, or rely on free-form scoring by humans/GPT, making comparisons noisy. SEED-Bench builds a large, objective multiple-choice test (image+video) to measure generative comprehension across targeted dimensions.
Main Contribution
A large-scale, human-verified multiple-choice benchmark of 19K questions spanning 12 spatial and temporal dimensions.
A generation pipeline that extracts visual text (captions, instance descriptions, OCR), uses ChatGPT/GPT-4 to draft questions, filters non-visual questions automatically, then applies human verification.
Key Findings
SEED-Bench contains 19K human-verified multiple-choice questions across 12 dimensions.
5.52% of autogenerated questions were answerable without the image and were filtered out.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark size | 19,242 multiple-choice questions | — | — | Overall (12 dims) | Sec.3 Abstract | Fig.1, Sec.3 |
| Accuracy | 53.37% | — | — | InstructBLIP (Vicuna) on SEED-Bench | Table 3; Sec.4.2 | Table 3 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Run your model on SEED-Bench to find weak dimensions (OCR, relations, temporal).
Adopt likelihood-based ranking for multiple-choice evaluation to avoid label-formatting bugs.
If OCR matters, add specialized OCR preprocessing or fine-tune on text-rich image data and re-evaluate.
Reproducibility
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Temporal questions rely on dataset ground-truth rather than automatic video captioning, so automatic scalability for video QA is limited (Sec.3.3).
Text-recognition split is small (85 samples), so OCR conclusions have higher variance (Sec.3.3).
When Not To Use
Do not use SEED-Bench as the only safety or fairness test for production systems.
Avoid using it as a proxy for domain-specific video tasks that need specialized sensors or long-range context.
Failure Modes
Models may guess common-sense answers without using image evidence; automatic filtering reduces but does not eliminate this.
Some dimensions have uneven sample sizes, which can skew overall averages if not weighted (e.g., 4,649 vs 85).