MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13951v2
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 04:32:05 GMT
- Title: MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria
- Authors: Wentao Ge, Shunian Chen, Guiming Hardy Chen, Zhihong Chen, Junying Chen, Shuo Yan, Chenghao Zhu, Ziyue Lin, Wenya Xie, Xinyi Zhang, Yichen Chai, Xiaoyu Liu, Dingjie Song, Xidong Wang, Anningzhe Gao, Zhiyi Zhang, Jianquan Li, Xiang Wan, Benyou Wang,
- Abstract summary: We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs using potent MLLM as the judge.
We benchmark 21 popular MLLMs in a pairwise-comparison fashion, showing diverse performance across models.
The validity of our benchmark manifests itself in reaching 88.02% agreement with human evaluation.
- Score: 44.401826163314716
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) (e.g., GPT-4V, LLaVA, and Claude-3) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Yet, evaluating their performance presents a significant challenge owing to the inherently subjective nature of tasks that do not yield clear-cut solutions especially for those open-ended queries. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies are mainly limited in evaluating objective queries without considering real-world user experiences, inadequately addressing the nuances of creative and associative multimodal tasks. In our paper, we propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with \textit{per-sample criteria} using potent MLLM as the judge. To validate the feasibility and effectiveness of this paradigm, we design a benchmark, dubbed \textit{MLLM-Bench}, with the evaluation samples across six critical levels following the revised Bloom's Taxonomy with the ethical consideration. We benchmark 21 popular MLLMs in a pairwise-comparison fashion, showing diverse performance across models. Moreover, the validity of our benchmark manifests itself in reaching 88.02\% agreement with human evaluation. We contend that the proposed paradigm explores the potential of MLLMs as effective evaluation tools with the help of per-sample criteria, and that MLLM-Bench will serve as a catalyst for encouraging the development of user-centric MLLMs tailored to real-world applications. Our benchmark data, online leaderboard and submission entry are at https://mllm-bench.llmzoo.com.
Related papers
- 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) - Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable
Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework.
We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z) - PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs.
We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z) - SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs.
SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions.
We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z) - InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal
Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence.
Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning.
We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z) - ChEF: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Standardized Assessment
of Multimodal Large Language Models [49.48109472893714]
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown impressive abilities in interacting with visual content with myriad potential downstream tasks.
We present the first Comprehensive Evaluation Framework (ChEF) that can holistically profile each MLLM and fairly compare different MLLMs.
We will publicly release all the detailed implementations for further analysis, as well as an easy-to-use modular toolkit for the integration of new recipes and models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-05T16:01:40Z) - MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models [73.86954509967416]
Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) relies on the powerful LLM to perform multimodal tasks.
This paper presents the first comprehensive MLLM Evaluation benchmark MME.
It measures both perception and cognition abilities on a total of 14 subtasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-23T09:22:36Z) - LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain
Conversations with Large Language Models [28.441725610692714]
We propose a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs)
We design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call.
We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T05:57:09Z)
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.