Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

LIME: Less Is More for MLLM Evaluation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.06851 v3 pith:B5L4Q2KU submitted 2024-09-10 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords limebenchmarksevaluationmllmsmodelsperformancesamplescaptioning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are evaluated on various benchmarks, such as image captioning, visual question answering, and reasoning. However, many of these benchmarks include overly simple or uninformative samples, complicating the effective distinction of different MLLMs' performance. Furthermore, evaluating models across numerous benchmarks incurs a significant computational burden. To address these issues, we propose LIME (Less Is More for MLLM Evaluation), a refined and efficient benchmark curated through a semi-automated pipeline. This pipeline filters out uninformative samples and eliminates answer leakage by focusing on tasks that necessitate image-based understanding. Our experiments indicate that LIME reduces the number of samples by 76% and evaluation time by 77%, while also providing a more effective means of distinguishing the capabilities of different models. Notably, we find that traditional automatic metrics, such as CIDEr, are inadequate for assessing MLLMs' captioning performance; excluding the caption task score yields a more accurate reflection of overall model performance. All code and data are available at https://github.com/kangreen0210/LIME.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Breaking Down Video LLM Benchmarks: Knowledge, Spatial Perception, or True Temporal Understanding?

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Video LLM benchmark scores are inflated by language-prior and static-frame questions; VBenchComp separates those from true temporal questions and shows a trimmed core subset preserves rankings.

  2. Enhancing Sports Strategy with Video Analytics and Data Mining: Assessing the effectiveness of Multimodal LLMs in tennis video analysis

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    VideoLLaMA2's tennis sequence edit score jumps from 39.7 to 76.0 when text coordinates from detection models are included in the prompt, and a separately fine-tuned CLIP encoder raises single-event accuracy from 0.41 to 0.56.

Pith tools