Evaluates multimodal large language models on few-shot learning capabilities across nine diverse tasks. It probes the models' ability to leverage in-context demonstrations (0, 4, or 8 shots) and chain-of-thought reasoning under controlled retrieval settings, measuring performance relative to zero-shot baselines. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FewMMBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Fewmmbench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-fewmmbench-eval)
---
name: fewmmbench-eval
description: Evaluates multimodal large language models on few-shot learning capabilities across nine diverse tasks. It probes the models' ability to leverage in-context demonstrations (0, 4, or 8 shots) and chain-of-thought reasoning under controlled retrieval settings, measuring performance relative to zero-shot baselines. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FewMMBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.21854
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# fewmmbench-eval
> FewMMBench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Few-Shot Learning — Dogan et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.21854, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal large language models on few-shot learning capabilities across nine diverse tasks. It probes the models' ability to leverage in-context demonstrations (0, 4, or 8 shots) and chain-of-thought reasoning under controlled retrieval settings, measuring performance relative to zero-shot baselines.
## Datasets
- **FewMMBench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Proportion of correctly answered questions based on ground-truth labels.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Image-text query with 2-4 candidate answers in a multiple-choice format, optionally augmented with few-shot demonstrations (0, 4, or 8 examples) retrieved via random or graph-cut-based methods, and optionally chain-of-thought reasoning prompts.
**Output**: Model generates a text response selecting one candidate answer. Predictions are normalized via regex-based post-processing or evaluated via perplexity-based pairwise ranking over candidates.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels):
normalized_pred = extract_option_regex(pred)
if normalized_pred == gold:
correct += 1
return correct / len(gold_labels)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Regex-based post-processing may misinterpret open-ended or unexpected model outputs.
- Answer order bias can affect accuracy if models are sensitive to candidate placement.
- Perplexity-based ranking is an alternative that may yield different results than exact-match accuracy.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The primary metric is accuracy, computed as the proportion of correctly answered questions based on ground-truth labels. To ensure consistency in answer extraction, especially across models with varying output styles, we apply regex-based post-processing to normalize model predictions.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{dogan2026fewmmbench,
title={FewMMBench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Few-Shot Learning},
author={Dogan et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.21854}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.21854