Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have increasingly supported omni-modal processing across text, vision, and speech. However, existing evaluation frameworks for such models suffer from critical limitations, including modality shortcuts and biased reasoning paths. To address these challenges, we propose OMHBench, a novel benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate omni-modal multi-hop reasoning. It consists of 6,144 questions with balanced reasoning paths that are jointly grounded across all three modalities. Extensive evaluation of 13 state-of-the-art models reveals that (1) a large performance gap exists between proprietary and open-source MLLMs and (2) even proprietary models exhibit high sensitivity to reasoning path variations, resulting in asymmetric omni-modal grounding. Notably, models struggle when processing the speech modality, underscoring the need for balanced, multi-hop evaluation of omni-modal intelligence.

Most testbeds for omni-modal models assess multimodal understanding via textual outputs, leaving it unclear whether these models can properly speak their answers. To study this, we introduce OmniACBench, a benchmark for evaluating context-grounded acoustic control in omni-modal models. Given a spoken instruction, a text script, and an image, a model must read the script aloud with an appropriate tone and manner. OmniACBench comprises 3,559 verified instances covering six acoustic features: speech rate, phonation, pronunciation, emotion, global accent, and timbre. Extensive experiments on eight models reveal their limitations in the proposed setting, despite their strong performance on prior textual-output evaluations. Our analyses show that the main bottleneck lies not in processing individual modalities, but in integrating multimodal context for faithful speech generation. Moreover, we identify three common failure modes—weak direct control, failed implicit inference, and failed multimodal grounding—providing insights for developing models that can verbalize responses effectively.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to decline queries that fall outside their knowledge (knowledge-based refusal, KR) or violate safety policies (safety-based refusal, SR). Although KR and SR result in superficially similar responses, they have largely been studied in isolation, leaving open whether they share an underlying mechanism. We address this gap with a systematic study on a new dataset of 213 contrastive quadruples that jointly probe both refusal types. We find that KR and SR are governed by overlapping yet distinguishable mechanisms. Both share a refusal direction, yet the overlap is asymmetric: SR signals transfer more strongly to KR than the reverse. Type-specific specialization emerges mainly in upper layers, with KR aligning with uncertainty- and knowledge-related representations and SR with safety- and policy-related ones. We thus characterize refusal as a commit-then-specify process: a shared initial mechanism commits to refusing, then type-specific features in later layers specify whether the grounds are epistemic or normative.

Real-world decision-making often requires integrating and reasoning over information from multiple modalities. While recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promise in such tasks, their ability to perform multi-hop reasoning across diverse sources remains insufficiently evaluated. Existing benchmarks, such as MMQA, face challenges due to (1) data contamination and (2) a lack of complex queries that necessitate operations across more than two modalities, hindering accurate performance assessment. To address this, we present Financial Cross-Modal Multi-Hop Reasoning (FCMR), a benchmark created to analyze the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs by urging them to combine information from textual reports, tables, and charts within the financial domain. FCMR is categorized into three difficulty levels—Easy, Medium, and Hard—facilitating a step-by-step evaluation. In particular, problems at the Hard level require precise cross-modal three-hop reasoning and are designed to prevent the disregard of any modality. Experiments on this new benchmark reveal that even state-of-the-art MLLMs struggle, with the best-performing model (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) achieving only 30.4% accuracy on the most challenging tier. We also conduct analysis to provide insights into the inner workings of the models, including the discovery of a critical bottleneck in the information retrieval phase.