Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning
This addresses the need for reliable verification in multimodal AI systems, though it is incremental as it focuses on benchmarking and evaluation rather than a new method.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in complex reasoning tasks, introducing the MuRGAt benchmark and showing that even strong multimodal large language models frequently hallucinate citations and face a trade-off between reasoning depth and accuracy.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation, where reliability requires grounding model outputs in heterogeneous input sources and verifying individual factual claims. However, existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods focus on simplified, observation-based scenarios or limited modalities and fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning. We introduce MuRGAt (Multimodal Reasoning with Grounded Attribution), a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation. Given inputs spanning video, audio, and other modalities, MuRGAt requires models to generate answers with explicit reasoning and precise citations, where each citation specifies both modality and temporal segments. To enable reliable assessment, we introduce an automatic evaluation framework that strongly correlates with human judgments. Benchmarking with human and automated scores reveals that even strong MLLMs frequently hallucinate citations despite correct reasoning. Moreover, we observe a key trade-off: increasing reasoning depth or enforcing structured grounding often degrades accuracy, highlighting a significant gap between internal reasoning and verifiable attribution.