Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04017v1
• Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 02:13:46 GMT
• Title: Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability
• Authors: Haiqi Yang, Jinzhe Li, Gengxu Li, Yi Chang, Yuan Wu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the Input Scrutiny Ability Evaluation Framework (ISEval), which encompasses seven categories of flawed premises and three evaluation metrics.<n>Most models struggle to actively detect flawed textual premises without guidance.<n>These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LMMs' proactive verification of input validity.
• Score: 10.607081850023286
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have witnessed remarkable growth, showcasing formidable capabilities in handling intricate multimodal tasks with exceptional performance. Recent research has underscored the inclination of large language models to passively accept defective inputs, often resulting in futile reasoning on invalid prompts. However, the same critical question of whether LMMs can actively detect and scrutinize erroneous inputs still remains unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce the Input Scrutiny Ability Evaluation Framework (ISEval), which encompasses seven categories of flawed premises and three evaluation metrics. Our extensive evaluation of ten advanced LMMs has identified key findings. Most models struggle to actively detect flawed textual premises without guidance, which reflects a strong reliance on explicit prompts for premise error identification. Error type affects performance: models excel at identifying logical fallacies but struggle with surface-level linguistic errors and certain conditional flaws. Modality trust varies-Gemini 2.5 pro and Claude Sonnet 4 balance visual and textual info, while aya-vision-8b over-rely on text in conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LMMs' proactive verification of input validity and shed novel insights into mitigating the problem. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/LMM_ISEval.

Related papers

• Hidden in Plain Sight: Probing Implicit Reasoning in Multimodal Language Models [21.698247799954654]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in open-ended, real-world environments.<n>This paper presents a systematic analysis of how current MLLMs handle implicit reasoning scenarios.<n>We find that models frequently fail to surface hidden issues, even when they possess the necessary perceptual and reasoning skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:47:28Z)
• Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models [11.379764847748378]
  Large language models (LLMs) often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs.<n>This emphasizes the significance of possessing the textbfPremise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises.<n>We introduce the textbfPremise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:49:44Z)
• 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.<n>We propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning benchmark to assess MLLMs' ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches.<n>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)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection [60.297079601066784]
  We introduce ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs' capabilities in error detection. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions. Results indicate significant challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T14:59:09Z)
• 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)
• On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language Models [93.13542053835542]
  Performance of large language models (LLMs) is acutely sensitive to the phrasing of prompts. We introduce RobustAlpacaEval, a new benchmark that consists of semantically equivalent case-level queries. Experiments on RobustAlpacaEval with ChatGPT and six open-source LLMs from the Llama, Mistral, and Gemma families uncover substantial variability in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-08T13:40:38Z)
• Unsolvable Problem Detection: Robust Understanding Evaluation for Large Multimodal Models [84.78457918843165]
  Unsolvable Problem Detection (UPD) is a novel task to evaluate the robust understanding capability of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs)<n>UPD assesses the LMM's ability to withhold answers when encountering unsolvable problems of multiple-choice question answering.<n>This paper introduces the MM-UPD Bench, a benchmark for assessing performance across various ability dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T17:59:53Z)
• Multimodal Large Language Models to Support Real-World Fact-Checking [80.41047725487645]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) carry the potential to support humans in processing vast amounts of information. While MLLMs are already being used as a fact-checking tool, their abilities and limitations in this regard are understudied. We propose a framework for systematically assessing the capacity of current multimodal models to facilitate real-world fact-checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T11:32:41Z)
• 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)

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.