MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06281v5
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 03:56:03 GMT
• Title: MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?
• Authors: Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Wangbo Zhao, Yike Yuan, Jiaqi Wang, Conghui He, Ziwei Liu, Kai Chen, Dahua Lin,
• Abstract summary: We propose MMBench, a benchmark for assessing the multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models. MMBench is meticulously curated with well-designed quality control schemes. MMBench incorporates multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese versions.
• Score: 114.45702807380415
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large vision-language models (VLMs) have recently achieved remarkable progress, exhibiting impressive multimodal perception and reasoning abilities. However, effectively evaluating these large VLMs remains a major challenge, hindering future development in this domain. Traditional benchmarks like VQAv2 or COCO Caption provide quantitative performance measurements but lack fine-grained ability assessment and robust evaluation metrics. Meanwhile, subjective benchmarks, such as OwlEval, offer comprehensive evaluations of a model's abilities by incorporating human labor, which is not scalable and may display significant bias. In response to these challenges, we propose MMBench, a bilingual benchmark for assessing the multi-modal capabilities of VLMs. MMBench methodically develops a comprehensive evaluation pipeline, primarily comprised of the following key features: 1. MMBench is meticulously curated with well-designed quality control schemes, surpassing existing similar benchmarks in terms of the number and variety of evaluation questions and abilities; 2. MMBench introduces a rigorous CircularEval strategy and incorporates large language models to convert free-form predictions into pre-defined choices, which helps to yield accurate evaluation results for models with limited instruction-following capabilities. 3. MMBench incorporates multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese versions, enabling an apples-to-apples comparison of VLMs' performance under a bilingual context. To summarize, MMBench is a systematically designed objective benchmark for a robust and holistic evaluation of vision-language models. We hope MMBench will assist the research community in better evaluating their models and facilitate future progress in this area. The evalutation code of MMBench has been integrated into VLMEvalKit: https://github.com/open-compass/VLMEvalKit.

Related papers

• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia. In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models. This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Evaluating and Advancing Multimodal Large Language Models in Ability Lens [30.083110119139793]
  We introduce textbfAbilityLens, a unified benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs across six key perception abilities. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of current models, highlighting stability patterns and revealing a notable performance gap between open-source and closed-source models. We also design a simple ability-specific model merging method that combines the best ability checkpoint from early training stages, effectively mitigating performance decline due to ability conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T04:41:20Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models [71.8065384742686]
  LMMS-EVAL is a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models. LMMS-EVAL LITE is a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency. Multimodal LIVEBENCH utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T17:51:53Z)
• MM-Vet: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models for Integrated Capabilities [159.9847317300497]
  We propose MM-Vet, an evaluation benchmark that examines large multimodal models (LMMs) on complicated multimodal tasks. Recent LMMs have shown various intriguing abilities, such as solving math problems written on the blackboard, reasoning about events and celebrities in news images, and explaining visual jokes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-04T17:59:47Z)
• SEED-Bench: Benchmarking Multimodal LLMs with Generative Comprehension [27.53415400454066]
  We introduce a benchmark named SEED-Bench to assess generative models. SEED-Bench consists of 19K multiple choice questions with accurate human annotations. We evaluate the performance of 18 models across all 12 dimensions, covering both the spatial and temporal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-30T04:25:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.