Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19017v2
• Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:50:13 GMT
• Title: Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation
• Authors: Bin Zhu, Huiyan Qi, Yinxuan Gui, Jingjing Chen, Chong-Wah Ngo, Ee-Peng Lim,
• Abstract summary: This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks.<n>We introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments.
• Score: 65.92001420372007
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have exhibited remarkable advancements in integrating different modalities, excelling in complex understanding and generation tasks. Despite their success, MLLMs remain vulnerable to conversational adversarial inputs, particularly negation arguments. This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks, revealing significant performance drops when negation arguments are introduced to initially correct responses. Notably, we introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments. GaslightingBench consists of multiple-choice questions curated from existing datasets, along with generated negation prompts across 20 diverse categories. Throughout extensive evaluation, we find that proprietary models such as Gemini-1.5-flash, GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet demonstrate better resilience compared to open-source counterparts like Qwen2-VL and LLaVA. However, all evaluated MLLMs struggle to maintain logical consistency under negation arguments during conversation. Our findings provide critical insights for improving the robustness of MLLMs against negation inputs, contributing to the development of more reliable and trustworthy multimodal AI systems.

Related papers

• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information. We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning. We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR): A New Benchmark for Multimodal Reasoning Models [26.17300490736624]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are predominantly trained and tested on consistent visual-textual inputs. We propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning benchmark to assess MLLMs' ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches. We evaluate six state-of-the-art MLLMs, showing that models with dedicated multimodal reasoning capabilities, such as o1, substantially outperform their counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T01:52:37Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z)
• Assessing Adversarial Robustness of Large Language Models: An Empirical Study [24.271839264950387]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their robustness against adversarial attacks remains a critical concern. We present a novel white-box style attack approach that exposes vulnerabilities in leading open-source LLMs, including Llama, OPT, and T5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-04T22:00:28Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [68.83624133567213]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question. We also propose a simple yet effective method, Active Deduction (AD), to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Quantifying and Mitigating Unimodal Biases in Multimodal Large Language Models: A Causal Perspective [9.633811630889237]
  We propose a causal framework to interpret the biases in Visual Question Answering (VQA) problems. We introduce a novel dataset with 12,000 challenging VQA instances requiring multi-hop reasoning. Our experiments show that MLLMs perform poorly on MORE, indicating strong unimodal biases and limited semantic understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T08:38:49Z)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria [49.500322937449326]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating queries without considering user experiences. We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T12:04:25Z)
• 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)
• Let Models Speak Ciphers: Multiagent Debate through Embeddings [84.20336971784495]
  We introduce CIPHER (Communicative Inter-Model Protocol Through Embedding Representation) to address this issue. By deviating from natural language, CIPHER offers an advantage of encoding a broader spectrum of information without any modification to the model weights. This showcases the superiority and robustness of embeddings as an alternative "language" for communication among LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T03:06:38Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)

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.