LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10783v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:57:44 GMT
• Title: LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content
• Authors: Nimrod Shabtay, Felipe Maia Polo, Sivan Doveh, Wei Lin, M. Jehanzeb Mirza, Leshem Chosen, Mikhail Yurochkin, Yuekai Sun, Assaf Arbelle, Leonid Karlinsky, Raja Giryes,
• Abstract summary: We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
• Score: 62.816876067499415
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The large-scale training of multi-modal models on data scraped from the web has shown outstanding utility in infusing these models with the required world knowledge to perform effectively on multiple downstream tasks. However, one downside of scraping data from the web can be the potential sacrifice of the benchmarks on which the abilities of these models are often evaluated. To safeguard against test data contamination and to truly test the abilities of these foundation models we propose LiveXiv: A scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs (VQA). This is done without any human-in-the-loop, using the multi-modal content in the manuscripts, like graphs, charts, and tables. Moreover, we introduce an efficient evaluation approach that estimates the performance of all models on the evolving benchmark using evaluations of only a subset of models. This significantly reduces the overall evaluation cost. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities, avoiding contamination. Lastly, in our commitment to high quality, we have collected and evaluated a manually verified subset. By comparing its overall results to our automatic annotations, we have found that the performance variance is indeed minimal (<2.5%). Our dataset is available online on HuggingFace, and our code will be available here.

Related papers

• 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)
• MAPX: An explainable model-agnostic framework for the detection of false information on social media networks [1.5196326555431678]
  We introduce a novel model-agnostic framework, called MAPX, which allows evidence based aggregation of predictions. We perform extensive experiments on benchmarked fake news datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of MAPX. Our empirical results show that the proposed framework consistently outperforms all state-of-the-art models evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T03:45:10Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• SelfEval: Leveraging the discriminative nature of generative models for evaluation [35.7242199928684]
  We show that text-to-image generative models can be 'inverted' to assess their own text-image understanding capabilities. Our method, called SelfEval, uses the generative model to compute the likelihood of real images given text prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-17T18:58:16Z)
• Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [50.62245481416744]
  We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world. We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique. By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z)
• Reassessing Evaluation Practices in Visual Question Answering: A Case Study on Out-of-Distribution Generalization [27.437077941786768]
  Vision-and-language (V&L) models pretrained on large-scale multimodal data have demonstrated strong performance on various tasks. We evaluate two pretrained V&L models under different settings by conducting cross-dataset evaluations. We find that these models tend to learn to solve the benchmark, rather than learning the high-level skills required by the VQA task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T16:44:45Z)
• Evaluation of HTR models without Ground Truth Material [2.4792948967354236]
  evaluation of Handwritten Text Recognition models during their development is straightforward. But the evaluation process becomes tricky as soon as we switch from development to application. We show that lexicon-based evaluation can compete with lexicon-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T01:26:09Z)
• Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory [53.755064720563]
  We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:33:53Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)

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.