REVIEW 3 cited by
VLind-Bench: Measuring Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models
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
VLind-Bench: Measuring Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models
read the original abstract
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated outstanding performance across various multimodal tasks. However, they suffer from a problem known as language prior, where responses are generated based solely on textual patterns while disregarding image information. Addressing the issue of language prior is crucial, as it can lead to undesirable biases or hallucinations when dealing with images that are out of training distribution. Despite its importance, current methods for accurately measuring language priors in LVLMs are poorly studied. Although existing benchmarks based on counterfactual or out-of-distribution images can partially be used to measure language priors, they fail to disentangle language priors from other confounding factors. To this end, we propose a new benchmark called VLind-Bench, which is the first benchmark specifically designed to measure the language priors, or blindness, of LVLMs. It not only includes tests on counterfactual images to assess language priors but also involves a series of tests to evaluate more basic capabilities such as commonsense knowledge, visual perception, and commonsense biases. For each instance in our benchmark, we ensure that all these basic tests are passed before evaluating the language priors, thereby minimizing the influence of other factors on the assessment. The evaluation and analysis of recent LVLMs in our benchmark reveal that almost all models exhibit a significant reliance on language priors, presenting a strong challenge in the field.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence
MedVIGIL introduces a clinician-supervised benchmark showing medical VLMs frequently give fluent answers on broken visual evidence, with top models 14 points below human radiologists on the composite score.
-
MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence
MedVIGIL provides a 300-case evaluation suite with 2556 probes that measures silent failures in medical VLMs under broken evidence, showing the best model at 69.2 on the composite score versus a human radiologist at 83.3.
-
Can Vision-Language Models Count? A Synthetic Benchmark and Analysis of Attention-Based Interventions
VLMs show systematic drops in counting accuracy as visual and linguistic complexity rise, with modest gains from targeted attention reweighting in the decoder.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.