Fooling the LVLM Judges: Visual Biases in LVLM-Based Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15249v1
• Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 08:24:28 GMT
• Title: Fooling the LVLM Judges: Visual Biases in LVLM-Based Evaluation
• Authors: Yerin Hwang, Dongryeol Lee, Kyungmin Min, Taegwan Kang, Yong-il Kim, Kyomin Jung,
• Abstract summary: Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment.<n>Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores?<n>This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores?
• Score: 14.521056434373213
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recently, large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment, yet their robustness along the visual modality remains underexplored. This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores? We define potential image induced biases within the context of T2I evaluation and examine how these biases affect the evaluations of LVLM judges. Moreover, we introduce a novel, fine-grained, multi-domain meta-evaluation benchmark named FRAME, which is deliberately constructed to exhibit diverse score distributions. By introducing the defined biases into the benchmark, we reveal that all tested LVLM judges exhibit vulnerability across all domains, consistently inflating scores for manipulated images. Further analysis reveals that combining multiple biases amplifies their effects, and pairwise evaluations are similarly susceptible. Moreover, we observe that visual biases persist under prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting the vulnerability of current LVLM evaluation systems and underscoring the urgent need for more robust LVLM judges.

Related papers

• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Evaluating and Mitigating LLM-as-a-judge Bias in Communication Systems [32.83708359216193]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems.<n>This paper systematically investigates judgment biases in two LLM-as-a-judge models under the point-wise scoring setting.<n>We propose four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T12:52:29Z)
• Real-World Summarization: When Evaluation Reaches Its Limits [1.4197924572122094]
  We compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches.<n>Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap surprisingly well with human judgments.<n>Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T17:23:56Z)
• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.751901240110888]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• Visual hallucination detection in large vision-language models via evidential conflict [24.465497252040294]
  Dempster-Shafer theory (DST)-based visual hallucination detection method for LVLMs through uncertainty estimation.<n>We propose to the best of our knowledge, the first Dempster-Shafer theory (DST)-based visual hallucination detection method for LVLMs through uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T11:03:10Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• Judging the Judges: Can Large Vision-Language Models Fairly Evaluate Chart Comprehension and Reasoning? [26.909604648952616]
  We evaluate 13 open-source LVLMs as judges for diverse chart comprehension and reasoning tasks.<n>We design both pairwise and pointwise evaluation tasks covering criteria like factual correctness, informativeness, and relevancy.<n>We focus on cost-effective LVLMs suitable for both research and commercial use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T11:50:08Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Video SimpleQA: Towards Factuality Evaluation in Large Video Language Models [69.68265487134686]
  Video SimpleQA is the first comprehensive benchmark tailored for factuality evaluation of LVLMs.<n>Our work distinguishes from existing video benchmarks through the following key features.<n>Answers are crafted as unambiguous and definitively correct in a short format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T17:46:09Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study [19.461541208547136]
  This paper studies the impact of increasing the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the evaluation results.<n> Experimental results show that advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot and few-shot regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T15:11:58Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Debiasing Multimodal Large Language Models [61.6896704217147]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have become indispensable tools in computer vision and natural language processing. Our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias in the generated content, where the output is primarily influenced by the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) prior to the input image. To rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward vision information, we introduce two simple, training-free strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:35:07Z)
• Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment [8.948475969696075]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors used in real-world situations such as assessing written exams and benchmarking systems. We show that short universal adversarial phrases can be deceived to judge LLMs to predict inflated scores. It is found that judge-LLMs are significantly more susceptible to these adversarial attacks when used for absolute scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:55:20Z)
• How Many Unicorns Are in This Image? A Safety Evaluation Benchmark for Vision LLMs [55.91371032213854]
  This work focuses on the potential of Vision LLMs (VLLMs) in visual reasoning. We introduce a comprehensive safety evaluation suite, covering both out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T18:59:42Z)
• LVLM-eHub: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [55.304181390027274]
  This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of publicly available large multimodal models by building a LVLM evaluation Hub (LVLM-eHub) Our LVLM-eHub consists of $8$ representative LVLMs such as InstructBLIP and MiniGPT-4, which are thoroughly evaluated by a quantitative capability evaluation and an online arena platform. The study reveals several innovative findings. First, instruction-tuned LVLM with massive in-domain data such as InstructBLIP heavily overfits many existing tasks, generalizing poorly in the open-world scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T16:39:24Z)

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.