MEBench: A Novel Benchmark for Understanding Mutual Exclusivity Bias in Vision-Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20122v1
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 15:23:18 GMT
• Title: MEBench: A Novel Benchmark for Understanding Mutual Exclusivity Bias in Vision-Language Models
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces MEBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating mutual exclusivity (ME) bias.<n>Unlike traditional ME tasks, MEBench further incorporates spatial reasoning to create more challenging and realistic evaluation settings.<n>We assess the performance of state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) on this benchmark using novel evaluation metrics that capture key aspects of ME-based reasoning.
• Score: 27.516184838635414
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces MEBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating mutual exclusivity (ME) bias, a cognitive phenomenon observed in children during word learning. Unlike traditional ME tasks, MEBench further incorporates spatial reasoning to create more challenging and realistic evaluation settings. We assess the performance of state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) on this benchmark using novel evaluation metrics that capture key aspects of ME-based reasoning. To facilitate controlled experimentation, we also present a flexible and scalable data generation pipeline that supports the construction of diverse annotated scenes.

Related papers

• Contextualized Evaluation of Vision Language Models through Dynamic, Multi-turn Interactions [15.505991441542372]
  We propose a framework that recasts evaluation as a three-party interaction between an evaluatee model, an automated examiner, and a grader.<n>By navigating state-space transitions, CEDI deploys diverse strategies, from clarification requests to adversarial probes, to elicit performance evidence.<n>We show that hallucinations often accumulate over long contexts, through self-reinforcing dialogue history, and models are particularly vulnerable to questions requiring premise rejection or refusal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T02:25:03Z)
• KnowDR-REC: A Benchmark for Referring Expression Comprehension with Real-World Knowledge [1.5833270109954136]
  We propose KnowDR-REC, built upon real-world knowledge, requiring fine-grained multimodal reasoning across text and image.<n>We evaluate 16 state-of-the-art multimodal models on KnowDR-REC, with experimental results showing that existing MLLMs still struggle with knowledge-driven visual grounding tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T19:43:44Z)
• EOC-Bench: Can MLLMs Identify, Recall, and Forecast Objects in an Egocentric World? [52.99661576320663]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have driven breakthroughs in egocentric vision applications.<n>EOC-Bench is an innovative benchmark designed to systematically evaluate object-centric embodied cognition in dynamic egocentric scenarios.<n>We conduct comprehensive evaluations of various proprietary, open-source, and object-level MLLMs based on EOC-Bench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:44:12Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity [34.29409506366145]
  VERIFY is a benchmark designed to isolate and rigorously evaluate the visual reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs.<n>Each problem is accompanied by a human-annotated reasoning path, making it the first to provide in-depth evaluation of model decision-making processes.<n>We propose novel metrics that assess visual reasoning fidelity beyond mere accuracy, highlighting critical imbalances in current model reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T16:26:11Z)
• Painting with Words: Elevating Detailed Image Captioning with Benchmark and Alignment Learning [56.31096024472269]
  We introduce DeCapBench along with a novel metric, DCScore, specifically designed for detailed captioning tasks.<n>DCScore evaluates hallucinations and fine-grained comprehensiveness by deconstructing responses into the smallest self-sufficient units.<n>DeCapBench exhibits a high correlation with VLM arena results on descriptive tasks, surpassing existing benchmarks for vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T22:53:56Z)
• Towards More Effective Table-to-Text Generation: Assessing In-Context Learning and Self-Evaluation with Open-Source Models [0.0]
  This study explores the effectiveness of various in-context learning strategies in language models (LMs) across benchmark datasets. We employ a large language model (LLM) self-evaluation approach using chain-of-thought reasoning and assess its correlation with human-aligned metrics like BERTScore. Our findings highlight the significant impact of examples in improving table-to-text generation and suggest that, while LLM self-evaluation has potential, its current alignment with human judgment could be enhanced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T09:19:42Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• 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)
• In-Memory Learning: A Declarative Learning Framework for Large Language Models [56.62616975119192]
  We propose a novel learning framework that allows agents to align with their environment without relying on human-labeled data. This entire process transpires within the memory components and is implemented through natural language. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework and provide insights into this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T08:25:11Z)
• FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
  We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE) FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• Open-ended VQA benchmarking of Vision-Language models by exploiting Classification datasets and their semantic hierarchy [27.454549324141087]
  We propose a novel VQA benchmark based on well-known visual classification datasets. We also suggest using the semantic hierarchy of the label space to ask automatically generated follow-up questions about the ground-truth category. Our contributions aim to lay the foundation for more precise and meaningful assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T18:26:18Z)
• MetricBERT: Text Representation Learning via Self-Supervised Triplet Training [26.66640112616559]
  MetricBERT learns to embed text under a well-defined similarity metric. We show that MetricBERT outperforms state-of-the-art alternatives, sometimes by a substantial margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-13T09:52:58Z)
• Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generation [36.594817754285984]
  We identify key properties and propose key goals of explainable machine translation evaluation metrics. We conduct own novel experiments, which find that current adversarial NLP techniques are unsuitable for automatically identifying limitations of high-quality black-box evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:05:54Z)

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.