Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

DARE: Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness 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 2409.18023 v2 pith:UAJHP7IZ submitted 2024-09-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords robustnessevaluationmodelsperformancevlmsdarediversenumber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Vision Language Models (VLMs) extend remarkable capabilities of text-only large language models and vision-only models, and are able to learn from and process multi-modal vision-text input. While modern VLMs perform well on a number of standard image classification and image-text matching tasks, they still struggle with a number of crucial vision-language (VL) reasoning abilities such as counting and spatial reasoning. Moreover, while they might be very brittle to small variations in instructions and/or evaluation protocols, existing benchmarks fail to evaluate their robustness (or rather the lack of it). In order to couple challenging VL scenarios with comprehensive robustness evaluation, we introduce DARE, Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness Evaluation, a carefully created and curated multiple-choice VQA benchmark. DARE evaluates VLM performance on five diverse categories and includes four robustness-oriented evaluations based on the variations of: prompts, the subsets of answer options, the output format and the number of correct answers. Among a spectrum of other findings, we report that state-of-the-art VLMs still struggle with questions in most categories and are unable to consistently deliver their peak performance across the tested robustness evaluations. The worst case performance across the subsets of options is up to 34% below the performance in the standard case. The robustness of the open-source VLMs such as LLaVA 1.6 and Idefics2 cannot match the closed-source models such as GPT-4 and Gemini, but even the latter remain very brittle to different variations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. BLaVe-CoT: Consistency-Aware Visual Question Answering for Blind and Low Vision Users

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    BLaVe-CoT predicts whether candidate answers to a visual question refer to the same or different image regions, improving F1 on the VQA-AnswerTherapy benchmark.

Pith tools