Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models in Alignment with Human Values
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17830v1
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:10:21 GMT
- Title: Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models in Alignment with Human Values
- Authors: Zhelun Shi, Zhipin Wang, Hongxing Fan, Zaibin Zhang, Lijun Li, Yongting Zhang, Zhenfei Yin, Lu Sheng, Yu Qiao, Jing Shao,
- Abstract summary: We introduce Ch3Ef, a Compreh3ensive Evaluation dataset and strategy for assessing alignment with human expectations.
Ch3Ef dataset contains 1002 human-annotated data samples, covering 12 domains and 46 tasks based on the hhh principle.
- Score: 43.023052912326314
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) aim to serve as versatile assistants aligned with human values, as defined by the principles of being helpful, honest, and harmless (hhh). However, in terms of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), despite their commendable performance in perception and reasoning tasks, their alignment with human values remains largely unexplored, given the complexity of defining hhh dimensions in the visual world and the difficulty in collecting relevant data that accurately mirrors real-world situations. To address this gap, we introduce Ch3Ef, a Compreh3ensive Evaluation dataset and strategy for assessing alignment with human expectations. Ch3Ef dataset contains 1002 human-annotated data samples, covering 12 domains and 46 tasks based on the hhh principle. We also present a unified evaluation strategy supporting assessment across various scenarios and different perspectives. Based on the evaluation results, we summarize over 10 key findings that deepen the understanding of MLLM capabilities, limitations, and the dynamic relationships between evaluation levels, guiding future advancements in the field.
Related papers
- 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) - CLAVE: An Adaptive Framework for Evaluating Values of LLM Generated Responses [34.77031649891843]
We introduce CLAVE, a novel framework which integrates two complementary Large Language Models (LLMs)
This dual-model approach enables calibration with any value systems using 100 human-labeled samples per value type.
We present ValEval, a comprehensive dataset comprising 13k+ (text,value,label) 12+s across diverse domains, covering three major value systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-15T13:51:37Z) - LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.
We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.
We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z) - VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs.
Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations.
We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z) - Can Large Language Models Understand Context? [17.196362853457412]
This paper introduces a context understanding benchmark by adapting existing datasets to suit the evaluation of generative models.
Experimental results indicate that pre-trained dense models struggle with understanding more nuanced contextual features when compared to state-of-the-art fine-tuned models.
As LLM compression holds growing significance in both research and real-world applications, we assess the context understanding of quantized models under in-context-learning settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-01T18:55:29Z) - Large Language Models as Automated Aligners for benchmarking
Vision-Language Models [48.4367174400306]
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have reached a new level of sophistication, showing notable competence in executing intricate cognition and reasoning tasks.
Existing evaluation benchmarks, primarily relying on rigid, hand-crafted datasets, face significant limitations in assessing the alignment of these increasingly anthropomorphic models with human intelligence.
In this work, we address the limitations via Auto-Bench, which delves into exploring LLMs as proficient curation, measuring the alignment betweenVLMs and human intelligence and value through automatic data curation and assessment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-24T16:12:05Z) - Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with
Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale.
We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units.
We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
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.