AMBER: An LLM-free Multi-dimensional Benchmark for MLLMs Hallucination Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07397v2
• Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:54:11 GMT
• Title: AMBER: An LLM-free Multi-dimensional Benchmark for MLLMs Hallucination Evaluation
• Authors: Junyang Wang, Yuhang Wang, Guohai Xu, Jing Zhang, Yukai Gu, Haitao Jia, Jiaqi Wang, Haiyang Xu, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, Jitao Sang
• Abstract summary: Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) encounter the significant challenge of hallucinations. evaluating MLLMs' hallucinations is becoming increasingly important in model improvement and practical application deployment. We propose an LLM-free multi-dimensional benchmark AMBER, which can be used to evaluate both generative task and discriminative task.
• Score: 58.19101663976327
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite making significant progress in multi-modal tasks, current Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) encounter the significant challenge of hallucinations, which may lead to harmful consequences. Therefore, evaluating MLLMs' hallucinations is becoming increasingly important in model improvement and practical application deployment. Previous works are limited in high evaluation costs (e.g., relying on humans or advanced LLMs) and insufficient evaluation dimensions (e.g., types of tasks and hallucinations). In this paper, we propose an LLM-free multi-dimensional benchmark AMBER, which can be used to evaluate both generative task and discriminative task including existence, attribute and relation hallucination. Based on AMBER, we design a low-cost and efficient evaluation pipeline. Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation and detailed analysis of mainstream MLLMs including GPT-4V(ision), and also give guideline suggestions for mitigating hallucinations. The data and code of AMBER are available at https://github.com/junyangwang0410/AMBER.

Related papers

• A Survey of Hallucination in Large Visual Language Models [48.794850395309076]
  The existence of hallucinations has limited the potential and practical effectiveness of LVLM in various fields. The structure of LVLMs and main causes of hallucination generation are introduced. The available hallucination evaluation benchmarks for LVLMs are presented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T10:58:58Z)
• LongHalQA: Long-Context Hallucination Evaluation for MultiModal Large Language Models [96.64960606650115]
  LongHalQA is an LLM-free hallucination benchmark that comprises 6K long and complex hallucination text. LongHalQA is featured by GPT4V-generated hallucinatory data that are well aligned with real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T18:59:58Z)
• Exploring and Evaluating Hallucinations in LLM-Powered Code Generation [14.438161741833687]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) produce outputs that deviate from users' intent, exhibit internal inconsistencies, or misalign with factual knowledge. Existing work mainly focuses on investing the hallucination in the domain of natural language generation. We conduct a thematic analysis of the LLM-generated code to summarize and categorize the hallucinations present in it. We propose HalluCode, a benchmark for evaluating the performance of code LLMs in recognizing hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T07:31:45Z)
• HypoTermQA: Hypothetical Terms Dataset for Benchmarking Hallucination Tendency of LLMs [0.0]
  Hallucinations pose a significant challenge to the reliability and alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) This paper introduces an automated scalable framework that combines benchmarking LLMs' hallucination tendencies with efficient hallucination detection. The framework is domain-agnostic, allowing the use of any language model for benchmark creation or evaluation in any domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T22:23:37Z)
• MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z)
• MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria [49.500322937449326]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating queries without considering user experiences. We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T12:04:25Z)
• LVLM-eHub: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [55.304181390027274]
  This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of publicly available large multimodal models by building a LVLM evaluation Hub (LVLM-eHub) Our LVLM-eHub consists of $8$ representative LVLMs such as InstructBLIP and MiniGPT-4, which are thoroughly evaluated by a quantitative capability evaluation and an online arena platform. The study reveals several innovative findings. First, instruction-tuned LVLM with massive in-domain data such as InstructBLIP heavily overfits many existing tasks, generalizing poorly in the open-world scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T16:39:24Z)
• Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models [122.40337582958453]
  This work presents the first systematic study on object hallucination of large vision-language models (LVLMs) We find that LVLMs tend to generate objects that are inconsistent with the target images in the descriptions. We propose a polling-based query method called POPE to evaluate the object hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T16:34:01Z)

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.