Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2406.08702 v4 pith:I25IXUHK submitted 2024-06-13 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CV

VLind-Bench: Measuring Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models

classification cs.AI cs.CLcs.CV
keywords languagepriorsbenchmarklvlmsimagesmodelstestsbasic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    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.

  2. MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    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.

  3. Can Vision-Language Models Count? A Synthetic Benchmark and Analysis of Attention-Based Interventions

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    VLMs show systematic drops in counting accuracy as visual and linguistic complexity rise, with modest gains from targeted attention reweighting in the decoder.