ConMe: Rethinking Evaluation of Compositional Reasoning for Modern VLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08164v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:54:27 GMT
• Title: ConMe: Rethinking Evaluation of Compositional Reasoning for Modern VLMs
• Authors: Irene Huang, Wei Lin, M. Jehanzeb Mirza, Jacob A. Hansen, Sivan Doveh, Victor Ion Butoi, Roei Herzig, Assaf Arbelle, Hilde Kuhene, Trevor Darrel, Chuang Gan, Aude Oliva, Rogerio Feris, Leonid Karlinsky,
• Abstract summary: Compositional Reasoning (CR) entails grasping the significance of attributes, relations, and word order. Recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in such reasoning tasks.
• Score: 55.336997325029806
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Compositional Reasoning (CR) entails grasping the significance of attributes, relations, and word order. Recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs), comprising a visual encoder and a Large Language Model (LLM) decoder, have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in such reasoning tasks. This prompts a crucial question: have VLMs effectively tackled the CR challenge? We conjecture that existing CR benchmarks may not adequately push the boundaries of modern VLMs due to the reliance on an LLM-only negative text generation pipeline. Consequently, the negatives produced either appear as outliers from the natural language distribution learned by VLMs' LLM decoders or as improbable within the corresponding image context. To address these limitations, we introduce ConMe -- a compositional reasoning benchmark and a novel data generation pipeline leveraging VLMs to produce `hard CR Q&A'. Through a new concept of VLMs conversing with each other to collaboratively expose their weaknesses, our pipeline autonomously generates, evaluates, and selects challenging compositional reasoning questions, establishing a robust CR benchmark, also subsequently validated manually. Our benchmark provokes a noteworthy, up to 33%, decrease in CR performance compared to preceding benchmarks, reinstating the CR challenge even for state-of-the-art VLMs.

Related papers

• FVEval: Understanding Language Model Capabilities in Formal Verification of Digital Hardware [4.480157114854711]
  We present FVEval, the first comprehensive benchmark for characterizing large language models (LLMs) performance in tasks pertaining to formal verification (FV) The benchmark consists of three sub-tasks that measure LLM capabilities at different levels. We present both collections of expert-written verification collateral and methodologies to scalably generate synthetic examples aligned with FV.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T21:48:57Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• SFR-RAG: Towards Contextually Faithful LLMs [57.666165819196486]
  Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is a paradigm that integrates external contextual information with large language models (LLMs) to enhance factual accuracy and relevance. We introduce SFR-RAG, a small LLM that is instruction-textual with an emphasis on context-grounded generation and hallucination. We also present ConBench, a new evaluation framework compiling multiple popular and diverse RAG benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T01:08:18Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• ReForm-Eval: Evaluating Large Vision Language Models via Unified Re-Formulation of Task-Oriented Benchmarks [76.25209974199274]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) exhibit surprising capabilities to perceive visual signals and perform visually grounded reasoning. Our benchmark and evaluation framework will be open-sourced as a cornerstone for advancing the development of LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T04:07:37Z)
• Measuring and Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Vision-Language Models [61.28463542324576]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can generate human-like outputs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency. We propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T17:49:44Z)
• An Examination of the Compositionality of Large Generative Vision-Language Models [7.639748270719836]
  Generative Vision-Language Models (GVLMs) have been constructed via multimodal instruction tuning. In this paper, we examine both the evaluation metrics (VisualGPTScore, etc.) and current benchmarks for evaluating the compositionality of GVLMs. We identify the syntactical bias in current benchmarks, which is exploited by the linguistic capability of GVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T06:50:29Z)
• Benchmarking Zero-Shot Recognition with Vision-Language Models: Challenges on Granularity and Specificity [45.86789047206224]
  This paper presents novel benchmarks for evaluating vision-language models (VLMs) in zero-shot recognition. Our benchmarks test VLMs' consistency in understanding concepts across semantic granularity levels and their response to varying text specificity. Findings show that VLMs favor moderately fine-grained concepts and struggle with specificity, often misjudging texts that differ from their training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T09:29:06Z)

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.