MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00468v1
• Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:28:45 GMT
• Title: MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation
• Authors: Jinsheng Huang, Liang Chen, Taian Guo, Fu Zeng, Yusheng Zhao, Bohan Wu, Ye Yuan, Haozhe Zhao, Zhihui Guo, Yichi Zhang, Jingyang Yuan, Wei Ju, Luchen Liu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Ming Zhang,
• Abstract summary: MMEvalPro is a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. MMEvalPro comprises $2,138$ question triplets, totaling $6,414$ distinct questions. Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging.
• Score: 38.076276626337766
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises $2,138$ question triplets, totaling $6,414$ distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by $31.73\%$, compared to an average gap of $8.03\%$ in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by $23.09\%$, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just $14.64\%$). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.

Related papers

• MME-CoT: Benchmarking Chain-of-Thought in Large Multimodal Models for Reasoning Quality, Robustness, and Efficiency [63.23935582919081]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) We introduce MME-CoT, a specialized benchmark evaluating the CoT reasoning performance of LMMs. We conduct an in-depth analysis of state-of-the-art LMMs, uncovering several key insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T18:59:46Z)
• 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)
• LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models [71.8065384742686]
  LMMS-EVAL is a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models. LMMS-EVAL LITE is a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency. Multimodal LIVEBENCH utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T17:51:53Z)
• 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)
• MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player? [114.45702807380415]
  We propose MMBench, a benchmark for assessing the multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models. MMBench is meticulously curated with well-designed quality control schemes. MMBench incorporates multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T16:23:09Z)

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.