Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Cost-Accuracy Trade-offs in Multimodal Search Relevance Judgements

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 2410.19974 v1 pith:GK44HIG6 submitted 2024-10-25 cs.LG cs.CLcs.IR

classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.IR
keywords modelsmultimodalsearchacrosslanguagellmsmodelperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as effective search relevance evaluators. However, there is a lack of comprehensive guidance on which models consistently perform optimally across various contexts or within specific use cases. In this paper, we assess several LLMs and Multimodal Language Models (MLLMs) in terms of their alignment with human judgments across multiple multimodal search scenarios. Our analysis investigates the trade-offs between cost and accuracy, highlighting that model performance varies significantly depending on the context. Interestingly, in smaller models, the inclusion of a visual component may hinder performance rather than enhance it. These findings highlight the complexities involved in selecting the most appropriate model for practical applications.

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. AutoJudger: An Agent-Driven Framework for Efficient Benchmarking of MLLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An agent-driven framework adaptively selects a small subset of benchmark questions for MLLMs, preserving over 90% ranking accuracy with roughly 4-5% of the data.

Pith tools