VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13874v4
• Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 21:40:37 GMT
• Title: VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models
• Authors: Haoyi Qiu, Wenbo Hu, Zi-Yi Dou, Nanyun Peng,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 57.43276586087863
• License:
• Abstract: Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs, undermining their reliability. A comprehensive quantitative evaluation is necessary to identify and understand the extent of hallucinations in these models. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. Furthermore, current evaluation methods struggle to effectively address the subtle semantic distinctions between model outputs and reference data, as well as the balance between hallucination and informativeness. To address these issues, we introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases. Moreover, we propose a large language model (LLM)-based two-stage evaluation framework that generalizes the popular CHAIR metric and incorporates both faithfulness and coverage into the evaluation. Experiments on 10 established LVLMs demonstrate that our evaluation metric is more comprehensive and better correlated with humans than existing work when evaluating on our challenging human-annotated benchmark dataset. Our work also highlights the critical balance between faithfulness and coverage of model outputs, and encourages future works to address hallucinations in LVLMs while keeping their outputs informative.

Related papers

• H-POPE: Hierarchical Polling-based Probing Evaluation of Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models [0.0]
  We propose H-POPE, a coarse-to-fine-grained benchmark that assesses hallucinations in object existence and attributes. Our evaluation shows that models are prone to hallucinations on object existence, and even more so on fine-grained attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T17:55:37Z)
• 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)
• FIHA: Autonomous Hallucination Evaluation in Vision-Language Models with Davidson Scene Graphs [12.533011020126855]
  We introduce the FIHA (autonomous Fine-graIned Hallucination evAluation evaluation in LVLMs) FIHA could access hallucination LVLMs in the LLM-free and annotation-free way and model the dependency between different types of hallucinations. We introduce a benchmark called FIHA-v1, which consists of diverse questions on various images from MSCOCO and Foggy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T16:19:53Z)
• Reefknot: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Relation Hallucination Evaluation, Analysis and Mitigation in Multimodal Large Language Models [13.48296910438554]
  Hallucination issues persistently plagued current multimodal large language models (MLLMs) We introduce Reefknot, a benchmark specifically targeting relation hallucinations, consisting of over 20,000 samples derived from real-world scenarios. Our comparative evaluation across three distinct tasks revealed a substantial shortcoming in the capabilities of current MLLMs to mitigate relation hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T10:07:02Z)
• Evaluating the Quality of Hallucination Benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models [67.89204055004028]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have been plagued by the issue of hallucination. Previous works have proposed a series of benchmarks featuring different types of tasks and evaluation metrics. We propose a Hallucination benchmark Quality Measurement framework (HQM) to assess the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T20:08:07Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• "Knowing When You Don't Know": A Multilingual Relevance Assessment Dataset for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation [90.09260023184932]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure relevance assessment using: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)

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.