MJ-Bench: Is Your Multimodal Reward Model Really a Good Judge for Text-to-Image Generation?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04842v1
• Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 20:03:16 GMT
• Title: MJ-Bench: Is Your Multimodal Reward Model Really a Good Judge for Text-to-Image Generation?
• Authors: Zhaorun Chen, Yichao Du, Zichen Wen, Yiyang Zhou, Chenhang Cui, Zhenzhen Weng, Haoqin Tu, Chaoqi Wang, Zhengwei Tong, Qinglan Huang, Canyu Chen, Qinghao Ye, Zhihong Zhu, Yuqing Zhang, Jiawei Zhou, Zhuokai Zhao, Rafael Rafailov, Chelsea Finn, Huaxiu Yao,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs, and close-source VLMs. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average.
• Score: 59.7772329962047
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While text-to-image models like DALLE-3 and Stable Diffusion are rapidly proliferating, they often encounter challenges such as hallucination, bias, and the production of unsafe, low-quality output. To effectively address these issues, it is crucial to align these models with desired behaviors based on feedback from a multimodal judge. Despite their significance, current multimodal judges frequently undergo inadequate evaluation of their capabilities and limitations, potentially leading to misalignment and unsafe fine-tuning outcomes. To address this issue, we introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges in providing feedback for image generation models across four key perspectives: alignment, safety, image quality, and bias. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs (e.g. LLaVA family), and close-source VLMs (e.g. GPT-4o, Claude 3) on each decomposed subcategory of our preference dataset. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average. Compared with open-source VLMs, smaller-sized scoring models can provide better feedback regarding text-image alignment and image quality, while VLMs provide more accurate feedback regarding safety and generation bias due to their stronger reasoning capabilities. Further studies in feedback scale reveal that VLM judges can generally provide more accurate and stable feedback in natural language (Likert-scale) than numerical scales. Notably, human evaluations on end-to-end fine-tuned models using separate feedback from these multimodal judges provide similar conclusions, further confirming the effectiveness of MJ-Bench. All data, code, models are available at https://huggingface.co/MJ-Bench.

Related papers

• Multimodal RewardBench: Holistic Evaluation of Reward Models for Vision Language Models [82.92771279118888]
  We introduce Multimodal RewardBench, an expert-annotated benchmark for evaluating multimodal reward models. Our dataset comprises 5,211 annotated (prompt, chosen response, rejected response) triplets collected from various vision-language models. We find that even the top-performing models, Gemini 1.5 Pro and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, achieve only 72% overall accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T01:48:13Z)
• MM-RLHF: The Next Step Forward in Multimodal LLM Alignment [59.536850459059856]
  We introduce MM-RLHF, a dataset containing $mathbf120k$ fine-grained, human-annotated preference comparison pairs. We propose several key innovations to improve the quality of reward models and the efficiency of alignment algorithms. Our approach is rigorously evaluated across $mathbf10$ distinct dimensions and $mathbf27$ benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T18:59:51Z)
• 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)
• DARE: Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness Evaluation [16.87867803628065]
  Vision Language Models (VLMs) extend remarkable capabilities of text-only large language models and vision-only models. They struggle with a number of crucial vision-language (VL) reasoning abilities such as counting and spatial reasoning. We introduce DARE, Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T16:31:50Z)
• EVALALIGN: Supervised Fine-Tuning Multimodal LLMs with Human-Aligned Data for Evaluating Text-to-Image Models [16.18275805302776]
  We propose EvalAlign, a metric characterized by its accuracy, stability, and fine granularity. We develop evaluation protocols that focus on two key dimensions: image faithfulness and text-image alignment. EvalAlign aligns more closely with human preferences than existing metrics, confirming its effectiveness and utility in model assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T11:56:15Z)
• Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models [56.02275285521847]
  We propose to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL) We find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:33:23Z)
• 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.