A core aspect of human perception is , the ability to relate ourselves to the surrounding physical environment and reason over possible actions in context. However, most existing benchmarks for multimodal foundation models (MFMs) emphasize spatial relations (relations among objects in a scene), while largely overlooking relationships that require reasoning relative to agent's viewpoint, pose, and motion. To bridge this gap, we introduce SAW-Bench (ituated wareness in the Real orld), a novel benchmark for evaluating egocentric situated awareness using real-world videos. SAW-Bench comprises 786 self-recorded videos captured with Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) smart glasses spanning diverse indoor and outdoor environments, and over 2071 question-answer pairs. It probes a model’s observer–environment understanding with different awareness tasks. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a human-model performance gap of 31.97%, even with the best-performing MFM, Gemini 3 Flash. Beyond this gap, our in-depth analysis uncovers several notable findings; for example, while models can exploit partial geometric cues in egocentric videos, they often fail to infer a coherent camera geometry, leading to systematic spatial reasoning errors. We position SAW-Bench as a benchmark for situated spatial intelligence, moving beyond passive observation to understanding physically grounded, observer-centric dynamics.

Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) promise to accelerate biomedical discovery, yet their reliability remains unclear. We introduce ARIEL (AI Research Assistant for Expert-in-the-Loop Learning), an open-source evaluation and optimization framework that pairs a curated multimodal biomedical corpus with expert-vetted tasks to probe two capabilities: full-length article summarization and fine-grained figure interpretation. Using uniform protocols and blinded PhD-level evaluation, we find that state-of-the-art models generate fluent but incomplete summaries, whereas LMMs struggle with detailed visual reasoning. We later observe that prompt engineering and lightweight fine-tuning substantially improve textual coverage, and a compute-scaled inference strategy enhances visual question answering. We build an ARIEL agent that integrates textual and visual cues, and we show it can propose testable mechanistic hypotheses. ARIEL delineates current strengths and limitations of foundation models, and provides a reproducible platform for advancing trustworthy AI in biomedicine.

This paper introduces MISS-QA, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the ability of models to interpret schematic diagrams within scientific literature. MISS-QA comprises 1,500 expert-annotated examples over 465 scientific papers. In this benchmark, models are tasked with interpreting schematic diagrams that illustrate research overviews and answering corresponding information-seeking questions based on the broader context of the paper. We assess the performance of 18 frontier multimodal foundation models, including o4-mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Qwen2.5-VL. We reveal a significant performance gap between these models and human experts on MISS-QA. Our analysis of model performance on unanswerable questions and our detailed error analysis further highlight the strengths and limitations of current models, offering key insights to enhance models in comprehending multimodal scientific literature.

We introduce MMVU, a comprehensive expert-level, multi-discipline benchmark for evaluating foundation models in video understanding. MMVU includes 3,000 expert-annotated questions spanning 27 subjects across four core disciplines: Science, Healthcare, Humanities Social Sciences, and Engineering. Compared to prior benchmarks, MMVU features three key advancements. First, it challenges models to apply domain-specific knowledge and perform expert-level reasoning to analyze specialized-domain videos, moving beyond the basic visual perception typically assessed in current video benchmarks. Second, each example is annotated by human experts from scratch. We implement strict data quality controls to ensure the high quality of the dataset. Finally, each example is enriched with expert-annotated reasoning rationals and relevant domain knowledge, facilitating in-depth analysis. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 32 frontier multimodal foundation models on MMVU. The latest System-2-capable models, o1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, achieve the highest performance among the tested models. However, they still fall short of matching human expertise. Through in-depth error analyses and case studies, we offer actionable insights for future advancements in expert-level, knowledge-intensive video understanding for specialized domains.

Existing benchmarks often highlight the remarkable performance achieved by state-of-the-art Multimodal Foundation Models (MFMs) in leveraging temporal context for video understanding.However, *how well do the models truly perform visual temporal reasoning?*Our study of existing benchmarks shows that this capability of MFMs is likely overestimated as many questions can be solved by using a single, few, or out-of-order frames. To systematically examine current visual temporal reasoning tasks, we propose three principles with corresponding metrics:(1) *Multi-Frame Gain*,(2) *Frame Order Sensitivity*,and (3) *Frame Information Disparity*.Following these principles, we introduce **TOMATO**, **T**emp**O**ral Reasoning **M**ultimod**A**l Evalua**T**i**O**n, a novel benchmark crafted to rigorously assess MFMs' temporal reasoning capabilities in video understanding.TOMATO comprises 1,484 carefully curated, *human-annotated* questions spanning *six* tasks (i.e. *action count, direction, rotation, shape & trend, velocity & frequency, and visual cues*), applied to 1,417 videos, including 805 self-recorded and -generated videos, that encompass human-centric, real-world, and simulated scenarios. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a human-model performance gap of 57.3% with the best-performing model.Moreover, our in-depth analysis uncovers more fundamental limitations beyond this gap in current MFMs. While they can accurately recognize events in isolated frames, they fail to interpret these frames as a continuous sequence.We believe TOMATO will serve as a crucial testbed for evaluating the next-generation MFMs and as a call to the community to develop AI systems capable of comprehending the human world dynamics through the video modality.

LLMs approach logical and mathematical reasoning through natural or symbolic languages. While natural language offers human-accessible flexibility but suffers from ambiguity, symbolic reasoning provides precise, machine-executable inferences at the cost of strict domain constraints. We introduce HYBRIDMIND, an adaptive strategy that selects the optimal reasoning approach for each reasoning problem. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate both prompting-based approaches with state-of-the-art LLMs and fine-tuned open-source models. We find that fine-tuning LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct as a meta-selector outperforms GPT-4o's natural language reasoning by 4.4% on FOLIO and 1.3% on MATH. More notably, using GPT-3.5-turbo as a prompted meta-selector yields a 10% improvement on FOLIO's challenging subset compared to GPT-4o. We will release our code and data to support future research.

Existing benchmarks for evaluating foundation models mainly focus on single-document, text-only tasks. However, they often fail to fully capture the complexity of research workflows, which typically involve interpreting non-textual data and gathering information across multiple documents. To address this gap, we introduce M3SciQA, a multi-modal, multi-document scientific question answering benchmark designed for a more comprehensive evaluation of foundation models. M3SciQA consists of 1,452 expert-annotated questions spanning 70 natural language processing paper clusters, where each cluster represents a primary paper along with all its cited documents, mirroring the workflow of comprehending a single paper by requiring multi-modal and multi-document data. With M3SciQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 18 foundation models. Our results indicate that current foundation models still significantly underperform compared to human experts in multi-modal information retrieval and in reasoning across multiple scientific documents. Additionally, we explore the implications of these findings for the future advancement of applying foundation models in multi-modal scientific literature analysis.