Benchmarking Trustworthiness of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07057v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:38:13 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Trustworthiness of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Study
• Authors: Yichi Zhang, Yao Huang, Yitong Sun, Chang Liu, Zhe Zhao, Zhengwei Fang, Yifan Wang, Huanran Chen, Xiao Yang, Xingxing Wei, Hang Su, Yinpeng Dong, Jun Zhu,
• Abstract summary: MultiTrust is the first comprehensive and unified benchmark on the trustworthiness of MLLMs. Our benchmark employs a rigorous evaluation strategy that addresses both multimodal risks and cross-modal impacts. Extensive experiments with 21 modern MLLMs reveal some previously unexplored trustworthiness issues and risks.
• Score: 51.19622266249408
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the superior capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) across diverse tasks, they still face significant trustworthiness challenges. Yet, current literature on the assessment of trustworthy MLLMs remains limited, lacking a holistic evaluation to offer thorough insights into future improvements. In this work, we establish MultiTrust, the first comprehensive and unified benchmark on the trustworthiness of MLLMs across five primary aspects: truthfulness, safety, robustness, fairness, and privacy. Our benchmark employs a rigorous evaluation strategy that addresses both multimodal risks and cross-modal impacts, encompassing 32 diverse tasks with self-curated datasets. Extensive experiments with 21 modern MLLMs reveal some previously unexplored trustworthiness issues and risks, highlighting the complexities introduced by the multimodality and underscoring the necessity for advanced methodologies to enhance their reliability. For instance, typical proprietary models still struggle with the perception of visually confusing images and are vulnerable to multimodal jailbreaking and adversarial attacks; MLLMs are more inclined to disclose privacy in text and reveal ideological and cultural biases even when paired with irrelevant images in inference, indicating that the multimodality amplifies the internal risks from base LLMs. Additionally, we release a scalable toolbox for standardized trustworthiness research, aiming to facilitate future advancements in this important field. Code and resources are publicly available at: https://multi-trust.github.io/.

Related papers

• MLLMGuard: A Multi-dimensional Safety Evaluation Suite for Multimodal Large Language Models [39.97454990633856]
  We present MLLMGuard, a multidimensional safety evaluation suite for MLLMs. It includes a bilingual image-text evaluation dataset, inference utilities, and a lightweight evaluator. Our evaluation results across 13 advanced models indicate that MLLMs still have a substantial journey ahead before they can be considered safe and responsible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T13:41:33Z)
• Needle In A Multimodal Haystack [79.81804334634408]
  We present the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the capability of existing MLLMs to comprehend long multimodal documents. Our benchmark includes three types of evaluation tasks: multimodal retrieval, counting, and reasoning. We observe that existing models still have significant room for improvement on these tasks, especially on vision-centric evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T13:09:16Z)
• Multimodal Large Language Models to Support Real-World Fact-Checking [80.41047725487645]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) carry the potential to support humans in processing vast amounts of information. While MLLMs are already being used as a fact-checking tool, their abilities and limitations in this regard are understudied. We propose a framework for systematically assessing the capacity of current multimodal models to facilitate real-world fact-checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T11:32:41Z)
• From GPT-4 to Gemini and Beyond: Assessing the Landscape of MLLMs on Generalizability, Trustworthiness and Causality through Four Modalities [111.44485171421535]
  We study the generalizability, trustworthiness, and causal reasoning capabilities of recent proprietary and open-source MLLMs across four modalities. We believe these properties are several representative factors that define the reliability of MLLMs. We uncover 14 empirical findings that are useful to understand the capabilities and limitations of both proprietary and open-source MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:53:03Z)
• TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models [446.5640421311468]
  This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in large language models (LLMs) We first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions. Based on these principles, we establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T22:07:21Z)
• How Trustworthy are Open-Source LLMs? An Assessment under Malicious Demonstrations Shows their Vulnerabilities [37.14654106278984]
  We conduct an adversarial assessment of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) on trustworthiness. We propose advCoU, an extended Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting strategy by incorporating carefully crafted malicious demonstrations for trustworthiness attack. Our experiments encompass recent and representative series of open-source LLMs, including Vicuna, MPT, Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T23:33:07Z)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)

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.