Overview
The survey compiles many published results and practical recipes but notes dataset overlap and benchmark leakage; apply findings with dataset-leakage checks and small-scale validation.
Citations15
Evidence Strength0.70
Confidence0.90
Risk Signals11
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 3/3
Findings with evidence refs: 3/3
Results with explicit delta: 1/3
Reproducibility
Status: Partial assets available
Open source: Partial
At A Glance
Cost impact: 65%
Production readiness: 70%
Novelty: 45%
Why It Matters For Business
You can add vision, audio, or other modalities to existing LLMs cheaply by training small projectors or PEFT adapters, unlocking richer user interactions without retraining huge models.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
This paper is a focused, up-to-date survey of multimodal large language models (MM-LLMs). It defines a simple five-part architecture (modality encoder, input projector, LLM backbone, output projector, modality generator), catalogs 126 recent MM-LLMs, compares 43 models across architectures and datasets, summarizes performance on common vision-language benchmarks (OKVQA, IconVQA, VQA v2, GQA), and distills practical training recipes (higher image resolution, interleaved image-text data, PEFT). The survey highlights open problems: better benchmarks, lightweight/mobile deployment, continual learning, hallucination reduction, and bias evaluation. The authors host a live tracking website: https:/
Problem Statement
How to cheaply and effectively extend text-only LLMs to handle multiple input and output modalities, and how recent MM-LLMs compare in architecture, training data, benchmarks, and practical recipes.
Main Contribution
A unified five-component architecture for MM-LLMs, clarifying where to add lightweight adapters.
A taxonomy and catalog of 126 MM-LLMs with a focused comparison table for 43 mainstream models.
Key Findings
Most MM-LLMs add small adapters while keeping the core LLM frozen.
Top MM-LLMs reach about 80% on VQA v2, but performance varies by task and dataset overlap.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | ≈80.0–80.8% | — | — | VQA v2 (reported test/bench) | Table 2 rows for LLaVA-1.5, VILA-13B, +ShareGPT4V | Table 2 |
| Accuracy | MiniGPT-v2: 56.9% | — | — | OKVQA | Table 2 OKVQA row | Table 2 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Prototype a proof-of-concept MM assistant by freezing an LLM and training a small linear projector on a 10k image-text SFT set
Measure dataset overlap before evaluating model claims on benchmarks to avoid leakage effects
Test higher visual encoder resolution (e.g., 336→448) on a dev set and track compute vs accuracy trade-off
Agent Features
Tool Use
Frameworks
Architectures
Optimization Features
Token Efficiency
Infra Optimization
Model Optimization
System Optimization
Training Optimization
Inference Optimization
Reproducibility
Data URLs
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Survey may miss the latest models; authors maintain a live website for updates.
Many benchmarks overlap with training data, so reported scores may overestimate real generalization.
When Not To Use
When strict factual grounding is mandatory and retrieval/verification is required
When operating on devices with very tight memory and no support for lightweight adapters
Failure Modes
Modal hallucination: describing objects not present in the input
Bias amplification from skewed multimodal training data