Judge Before Answer: Can MLLM Discern the False Premise in Question?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10965v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 03:17:00 GMT
• Title: Judge Before Answer: Can MLLM Discern the False Premise in Question?
• Authors: Jidong Li, Lingyong Fang, Haodong Zhao, Sufeng Duan, Gongshen Liu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a fully automated pipeline for constructing a benchmark of false premise questions.<n>Our method systematically categorizes the premises into three main types and thirteen subtypes according to the abilities required to identify the premises.<n>Building upon this benchmark, we propose a recognition enhancement framework tailored to strengthen the robustness of MLLMs to detect false premises.
• Score: 18.885479447650123
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have witnessed astonishing advancements in recent years. Despite these successes, MLLMs remain vulnerable to flase premise problems. However, existing benchmarks targeting this issue are limited in scope: they often lack fine-grained categorization, exhibit insufficient coverage, and thus fail to provide a rigorous evaluation of the ability of models to recognize false premises. To bridge this gap, we introduce a fully automated pipeline for constructing a comprehensive benchmark of false premise questions. Our method systematically categorizes the premises into three main types and thirteen subtypes according to the abilities required to identify the premises, resulting in the JBA dataset.Results show current MLLMs still struggle with false premise recognition. Building upon this benchmark, we further propose a recognition enhancement framework tailored to strengthen the robustness of MLLMs to detect false premises. Extensive experiments demonstrate that models trained with our framework achieve significant improvements in false premise recognition.

Related papers

• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• ObfusQAte: A Proposed Framework to Evaluate LLM Robustness on Obfuscated Factual Question Answering [3.131352561462676]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have contributed to the development of AI systems capable of factual question-answering.<n>No known study tests the LLMs' robustness when presented with obfuscated versions of questions.<n>We introduce ObfusQA, a framework with multi-tiered obfuscation levels to examine LLM capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-10T12:27:52Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• Hidden in Plain Sight: Reasoning in Underspecified and Misspecified Scenarios for Multimodal LLMs [28.913007638707427]
  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)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• Benchmarking Gaslighting Negation Attacks Against Multimodal Large Language Models [45.63440666848143]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have exhibited remarkable advancements in integrating different modalities.<n>Despite their success, MLLMs remain vulnerable to conversational adversarial inputs.<n>We study gaslighting negation attacks: a phenomenon where models, despite initially providing correct answers, are persuaded by user-provided negations to reverse their outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses.<n>Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies.<n>We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• 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)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Evaluating Uncertainty-based Failure Detection for Closed-Loop LLM Planners [10.746821861109176]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have witnessed remarkable performance as zero-shot task planners for robotic tasks.<n>However, the open-loop nature of previous works makes LLM-based planning error-prone and fragile.<n>In this work, we introduce a framework for closed-loop LLM-based planning called KnowLoop, backed by an uncertainty-based MLLMs failure detector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T12:52:06Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [77.72128397088409]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question.<n>We also propose a novel reinforcement learning paradigm to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• 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.