← 返回论文检索
ACL 2026aclfindings

ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection

Yibo Yan, Shen Wang, Jiahao Huo, Hang Li, Boyan Li, Jiamin Su, Xiong Gao, YiFan Zhang, Tianlong Xu, Zhendong Chu, Aoxiao Zhong, Kun Wang, Hui Xiong, Philip S. Yu, Xuming Hu, Qingsong Wen

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Alibaba · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Michigan State University · Squirrel Ai Learning · Squirrel AI · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Illinois Chicago · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

PDF 由论文原始站点提供,PaperCompass 不保存论文文件。DOI 10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1217 ↗

摘要

As the field of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) continues to evolve, their potential to handle mathematical reasoning tasks is promising, as they can handle multimodal questions via cross-modal understanding capabilities compared to text-only LLMs. Current mathematical benchmarks predominantly focus on evaluating MLLMs’ problem-solving ability, yet there is a crucial gap in addressing more complex scenarios such as error detection, for enhancing reasoning capability in complicated settings. To fill this gap, we formally formulate the new task — multimodal error detection, and introduce **ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs’ capabilities in such a task. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization**, providing a framework for evaluating MLLMs’ complex mathematical reasoning ability. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions in an educational organization, with expert-based annotation and metadata such as problem type and error category. Through extensive experiments, we evaluated both open-source and closed-source representative MLLMs, benchmarking their performance against educational expert evaluators. Results indicate challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best model performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation