Same Outputs, Different Scores: Auditing the Unchecked Graders of Multimodal LLM Benchmarks

Abstract

Every multimodal-LLM multiple-choice benchmark ends with a scoring rule that converts a model's response, often free-form text rather than a clean option letter, into a right/wrong verdict, buried in its code. Unlike the dataset, this rule is chosen without justification and left unexamined, yet it sets the published number. We reproduce the official scorers of eight peer-reviewed benchmarks on five open vision-language models (VLMs) that fit a single 16 GB GPU, and introduce a blinded human-plus-LLM-judge adjudication (Cohen's kappa=0.956) that recovers what the model actually answered. The scoring rule alone moves accuracy by up to 22 points on identical outputs, yet exactly 0 wherever a model emits clean option letters, so it hides on strong-model leaderboards. It is the fallback and not the rambling that does the damage: the benchmark with the highest non-compliance we measure has an artifact of exactly zero, because its scorer abstains instead of guessing; a reasoning model with non-compliance 0.000 still swings 9.5 points with which regex match of its trace the parser keeps. No standard rule is reliable: snapping a non-answer to its closest option credits answers never given yet buries correct ones, abstention discards answers stated in words, and likelihood scoring follows answer-token priors, so a single grade conflates capability with luck rather than measuring either. We release all code, labels, and the protocol, and argue benchmarks should report a non-compliance rate and at least two rules, not one unexamined grade.