As the field of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) continues to evolve, their potential to handle mathematical reasoning tasks is promising, as they can handle multimodal questions via cross-modal understanding capabilities compared to text-only LLMs. Current mathematical benchmarks predominantly focus on evaluating MLLMs’ problem-solving ability, yet there is a crucial gap in addressing more complex scenarios such as error detection, for enhancing reasoning capability in complicated settings. To fill this gap, we formally formulate the new task — multimodal error detection, and introduce ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs’ capabilities in such a task. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization, providing a framework for evaluating MLLMs’ complex mathematical reasoning ability. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions in an educational organization, with expert-based annotation and metadata such as problem type and error category. Through extensive experiments, we evaluated both open-source and closed-source representative MLLMs, benchmarking their performance against educational expert evaluators. Results indicate challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best model performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation

Existing benchmarks for Deep Research Agents (DRAs) treat report generation as a single-shot writing task, which fundamentally diverges from how human researchers iteratively draft and revise reports via self-reflection or peer feedback. Whether DRAs can reliably revise reports with user feedback remains unexplored. We introduce Mr Dre, an evaluation suite that establishes multi-turn report revision as a new axis. Mr Dre consists of (1) a unified long-form report evaluation protocol spanning comprehensiveness, factuality, and presentation, and (2) a human-verified feedback simulation pipeline for systematic multi-turn revision evaluation. Our analysis of five diverse DRAs reveals a critical limitation: while agents can address most user feedback, they also regress on 16–27% of previously covered content and citation quality. Over multiple revision turns, even the best-performing agents leave significant headroom, as they continue to disrupt content outside the feedback’s scope and fail to preserve earlier edits. We further show that these issues are not easily resolvable through inference-time fixes such as prompt engineering and a dedicated sub-agent for revision.