Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Trust but Verify: Programmatic VLM Evaluation in the Wild

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 2410.13121 v1 pith:VLIURWWP submitted 2024-10-17 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords provequeriesresponsesevaluationprogrammaticbenchmarkchallengingconstruct
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) often generate plausible but incorrect responses to visual queries. However, reliably quantifying the effect of such hallucinations in free-form responses to open-ended queries is challenging as it requires visually verifying each claim within the response. We propose Programmatic VLM Evaluation (PROVE), a new benchmarking paradigm for evaluating VLM responses to open-ended queries. To construct PROVE, we provide a large language model (LLM) with a high-fidelity scene-graph representation constructed from a hyper-detailed image caption, and prompt it to generate diverse question-answer (QA) pairs, as well as programs that can be executed over the scene graph object to verify each QA pair. We thus construct a benchmark of 10.5k challenging but visually grounded QA pairs. Next, to evaluate free-form model responses to queries in PROVE, we propose a programmatic evaluation strategy that measures both the helpfulness and truthfulness of a response within a unified scene graph-based framework. We benchmark the helpfulness-truthfulness trade-offs of a range of VLMs on PROVE, finding that very few are in-fact able to achieve a good balance between the two. Project page: \url{https://prove-explorer.netlify.app/}.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. mRAG: Elucidating the Design Space of Multi-modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic empirical study finds that for multimodal RAG, EVA-CLIP retrieval, listwise LVLM reranking, and feeding only the top-ranked document works best, with a self-reflection agent adding further gains.

  2. Mapping User Trust in Vision Language Models: Research Landscape, Challenges, and Prospects

    cs.CV 2025-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured review and pilot workshop that organizes VLM trust research into a new taxonomy and finds a shortage of direct user studies.

Pith tools