MM-LLMs: Recent Advances in MultiModal Large Language Models
In the past year, MultiModal Large Language Models (MM-LLMs) have undergone substantial advancements, augmenting off-the-shelf LLMs to support MM inputs or outputs via cost-effective training strategies. The resulting models not only preserve the inherent reasoning and decision-making capabilities of LLMs but also empower a diverse range of MM tasks. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey aimed at facilitating further research of MM-LLMs. Initially, we outline general design formulations for model architecture and training pipeline. Subsequently, we introduce a taxonomy encompassing 122 MM-LLMs, each characterized by its specific formulations. Furthermore, we review the performance of selected MM-LLMs on mainstream benchmarks and summarize key training recipes to enhance the potency of MM-LLMs. Finally, we explore promising directions for MM-LLMs while concurrently maintaining a real-time tracking website1 for the latest developments in the field. We hope that this survey contributes to the ongoing advancement of the MM-LLMs domain.
Introduction. MultiModal (MM) pre-training research has witnessed significant advancements in recent years, consistently pushing the performance boundaries across a spectrum of downstream tasks (Li et al., 2020; Akbari et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Zellers et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a,b). However, as the scale of models and datasets continues to expand, traditional MM models incur substantial computational costs, particularly when trained from scratch. Recognizing that MM research operates at the intersection of various modalities, a logical approach is to capitalize on readily available pre-trained unimodal foundation models, with a special emphasis on powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) (OpenAI, 2022). This strategy aims to mitigate computational expenses and enhance the efficacy of MM pre-training, leading to the emergence of a novel field: MM-LLMs. MM-LLMs harness LLMs as the cognitive powerhouse to empower various MM tasks.
Discussion / Conclusion. In this paper, we have presented a comprehensive survey of MM-LLMs with a focus on recent advancements. Initially, we categorize the model architecture into five components, providing a detailed overview of general design formulations and training pipelines. Subsequently, we introduce various SOTA MM-LLMs, each distinguished by its specific formulations. Our survey also sheds light on their capabilities across diverse MM benchmarks and envisions future developments in this rapidly evolving field. We hope this survey can provide insights for researchers, contributing to the ongoing advancements in the MM-LLMs domain.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do language models organize knowledge across layers and representations?- Do discrete tokenized modalities preserve information better than continuous embeddings?
- Why do multimodal models fail on rare and underrepresented concepts?
- What emergent abilities appear only in truly unified multimodal systems?
- What visual patterns transfer between infographic and UI tasks when trained jointly?
- How does annotation-based pretraining compare to self-supervised video masking for screen understanding?
- Why do small specialized models match frontier multimodal models on screen tasks?
- Can text-based and vision-based screen understanding achieve similar performance?
- How do textual and visual curriculum supervision complement each other in training?
- What role does visual perception play alongside accessibility tree information?
- Should GUI perception happen inside or outside the foundation model?
- How does representational density emerge from training data familiarity?
- How does Western-dominance bias propagate through multimodal training data?
- Why do internal representations differ when external performance matches?
- Do perfect accuracy scores hide broken internal representations?
- How much of weak-to-strong performance gaps reflect presentation rather than capability?
- How does the absence of failure rate information affect generalizability claims?