Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19120v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:14:46 GMT
• Title: Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models
• Authors: Armineh Nourbakhsh, Siddharth Parekh, Pranav Shetty, Zhao Jin, Sameena Shah, Carolyn Rose,
• Abstract summary: We argue that common evaluation metrics do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs.<n>We propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions.<n>Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences.
• Score: 12.951716701565019
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Document Visual Question Answering (VQA) models have evolved at an impressive rate over the past few years, coming close to or matching human performance on some benchmarks. We argue that common evaluation metrics used by popular benchmarks do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs. As a result, hallucinations and major semantic errors are treated the same way as well-grounded outputs, and the evaluation scores do not reflect the reasoning capabilities of the model. In response, we propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions with regard to the semantic characteristics of the output as well as the multimodal placement of the output within the input document. Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences. We validate our scoring methodology using human judgment and show its potential impact on existing popular leaderboards. Through extensive analyses, we demonstrate that our proposed method produces scores that are a better indicator of a model's robustness and tends to give higher rewards to better-calibrated answers.

Related papers

• A Meaningful Perturbation Metric for Evaluating Explainability Methods [55.09730499143998]
  We introduce a novel approach, which harnesses image generation models to perform targeted perturbation. Specifically, we focus on inpainting only the high-relevance pixels of an input image to modify the model's predictions while preserving image fidelity. This is in contrast to existing approaches, which often produce out-of-distribution modifications, leading to unreliable results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T11:46:41Z)
• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attribution Methods [49.62131719441252]
  Attribution methods compute importance scores for input features to explain the output predictions of deep models. In this work, we first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill. We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Evaluators: Are Current Few-Shot Learning Benchmarks Fit for Purpose? [11.451691772914055]
  This paper presents the first investigation into task-level evaluation. We measure the accuracy of performance estimators in the few-shot setting. We examine the reasons for the failure of evaluators usually thought of as being robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T02:31:38Z)
• Evaluating Representations with Readout Model Switching [19.907607374144167]
  In this paper, we propose to use the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle to devise an evaluation metric. We design a hybrid discrete and continuous-valued model space for the readout models and employ a switching strategy to combine their predictions. The proposed metric can be efficiently computed with an online method and we present results for pre-trained vision encoders of various architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T14:08:01Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• A Study on the Evaluation of Generative Models [19.18642459565609]
  Implicit generative models, which do not return likelihood values, have become prevalent in recent years. In this work, we study the evaluation metrics of generative models by generating a high-quality synthetic dataset. Our study shows that while FID and IS do correlate to several f-divergences, their ranking of close models can vary considerably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T09:27:31Z)
• Who Explains the Explanation? Quantitatively Assessing Feature Attribution Methods [0.0]
  We propose a novel evaluation metric -- the Focus -- designed to quantify the faithfulness of explanations. We show the robustness of the metric through randomization experiments, and then use Focus to evaluate and compare three popular explainability techniques. Our results find LRP and GradCAM to be consistent and reliable, while the latter remains most competitive even when applied to poorly performing models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-28T07:10:24Z)

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.