Affordance Benchmark for MLLMs
This work addresses a critical gap in environmental understanding for AI systems, particularly for enabling intuitive and safe interactions, though it is incremental as it focuses on benchmarking rather than proposing new methods.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating affordance perception in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) by introducing the A4Bench benchmark, and finds that all tested models, including top performers like Gemini-2.0-Pro with 18.05% accuracy, perform far below humans, who achieve 81.25% to 85.34% accuracy.
Affordance theory suggests that environments inherently provide action possibilities shaping perception and behavior. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance in vision-language tasks, their ability to perceive affordance, which is crucial for intuitive and safe interactions, remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce **A4Bench**, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the affordance perception abilities of MLLMs across two dimensions: 1) Constitutive Affordance, assessing understanding of inherent object properties through 1,282 questionanswer pairs spanning nine sub-disciplines, and 2) Transformative Affordance, probing dynamic and contextual nuances (e.g., misleading, time-dependent, cultural, or individual-specific affordance) with 718 challenging question-answer pairs. We evaluate 17 MLLMs (nine proprietary and eight open-source) and compare them to human performance. Results show that proprietary models generally outperform open-source ones, yet all models perform far below humans, especially in transformative affordance. Furthermore, even top-performing models, such as Gemini-2.0-Pro (18.05% overall exact match accuracy), significantly lag behind human performance (best: 85.34%, worst: 81.25%). These findings highlight critical gaps in environmental understanding of MLLMs and provide a foundation for advancing AI systems toward more robust, context-aware interactions.