\(\bullet\)_Evaluation paradigms._ The responses of MLLMs can be evaluated either in a closed-ended or an open-ended manner. Traditional multimodal tasks often rely on a closed-ended evaluation framework, where the assessment is based on the exact match between the model's response and the ground-truth answer. Examples include the VQA score [849] for visual question answering tasks and the CIDEr [850] score for captioning tasks. However, MLLMs generate responses in an open-ended way, which may contain the correct answer but not exactly match the ground-truth perfectly. This discrepancy can lead to the underestimation of the model's performance in previous evaluation paradigms. To address this issue, recent approaches have incorporated humans or LLMs as evaluators [829]. For instance, MMBench [838] employs ChatGPT to align the model responses with the most relevant option in a set of multiple-choice questions. Similarly, LLaVA [851] utilizes GPT-4 for evaluating MLLMs' output, where GPT-4 takes the generated image captions and object bounding boxes as visual inputs for assessment. Such open-ended evaluation methods can improve assessment accuracy while incurring higher costs due to the involvement of humans or LLMs.