OpenMOSS / OpenMOSS/MOSS-VL

Verify evals on Papers with Code

Open
#12 1 comment 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
HTML
Stars
708
Forks
32
Avg merge
1d 18h
Merged PRs (30d)
5

Description

Hi,

Niels here from the open-source team at Hugging Face. Congratulations on your work!

I've made the paper and 11 paper-native evaluations available on Papers with Code.

The paper has results on Image Understanding, Video Understanding, and Object Counting task pages.

The MOSS-VL-Instruct-0708 result currently ranks second on POPE.

The MOSS-VL-Instruct-0708 result currently ranks third on TOMATO.

The MOSS-VL-Instruct-0708 result currently ranks fourth on BLINK.

Would it be possible to verify these results and let me know if any score, model name, benchmark protocol, or openness metadata should be corrected? The imported rows are tied to the paper or its official release artifacts; comparison-table baselines were not added.

You can also edit the task, methods, project page, and GitHub URL directly from the paper page using your Hugging Face account.

If you'd like to showcase the results in your repository README, you can copy these live leaderboard badges (or use the “Copy PwC badge” button in the Results section):

Papers with Code: #2 on POPE
Papers with Code: #3 on TOMATO

Kind regards,

Niels

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start with the linked Papers with Code paper page and its 11 paper-native evaluation rows, then inspect the Image Understanding, Video Understanding, and Object Counting task pages. Verify the listed score, model name, benchmark protocol, and openness metadata against the paper or official release artifacts; done means confirming the rows or reporting specific corrections.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
documentation, machine-learning
Issue type
Documentation
Difficulty
3/5
Estimated time
1-2 days
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
64/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.