Evaluating the Quality of Hallucination Benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models

Bei Yan, Jie Zhang, Zheng Yuan, Shiguang Shan, Xilin Chen·June 24, 2024

Summary

This paper evaluates the quality of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) by proposing the Hallucination Benchmark Quality Measurement (HQM) framework. The framework assesses reliability through test-retest and parallel-forms analysis, and validity through criterion and hallucination type coverage. The authors create the High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH) using the Visual Genome dataset, which evaluates over 10 LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro. The study aims to improve understanding of hallucination issues, address shortcomings in existing benchmarks, and provide a more reliable and valid tool for researchers to measure and mitigate hallucinations in AI models. Results from various benchmarks and model evaluations highlight the need for comprehensive and diverse assessment methods, as well as the importance of addressing biases and response variability in open-ended tasks.

Key findings

19

Paper digest

What problem does the paper attempt to solve? Is this a new problem?

To provide a more accurate answer, I would need more specific information about the paper you are referring to. Please provide me with the title of the paper or a brief description of its topic so that I can assist you better.


What scientific hypothesis does this paper seek to validate?

This paper aims to validate the hypothesis related to the quality of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) . The study focuses on assessing the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks separately through various indicators . The hypothesis seeks to evaluate the degree of hallucination in LVLMs by examining the quality of existing benchmarks, identifying problems such as inconsistent evaluation results and misalignment with human evaluation, and proposing a framework for measuring the quality of hallucination benchmarks .


What new ideas, methods, or models does the paper propose? What are the characteristics and advantages compared to previous methods?

I would be happy to help analyze the new ideas, methods, or models proposed in a specific paper. Please provide me with the details or key points from the paper so that I can assist you better. I would be glad to assist in analyzing the characteristics and advantages of a specific method compared to previous methods. Kindly provide me with the details or key points from the paper so that I can offer you a more detailed analysis.


Do any related researches exist? Who are the noteworthy researchers on this topic in this field?What is the key to the solution mentioned in the paper?

Could you please specify the topic or field you are referring to so I can provide you with more accurate information?


How were the experiments in the paper designed?

To provide a detailed answer, I would need more specific information about the paper you are referring to. Could you please provide more details or context about the experiments in the paper so I can assist you better?


What is the dataset used for quantitative evaluation? Is the code open source?

To provide you with accurate information, I need more details about the specific project or research you are referring to. Could you please provide more context or details about the dataset and code you are inquiring about?


Do the experiments and results in the paper provide good support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified? Please analyze.

The experiments and results presented in the paper provide strong support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified regarding the evaluation of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) . The paper introduces a Hallucination benchmark Quality Measurement framework (HQM) that assesses the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks . Through the HQM framework, the paper evaluates the quality of both the High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH) and existing benchmarks, demonstrating that HQH exhibits the highest reliability and comparable validity to close-ended tasks, ensuring credible and meaningful hallucination evaluation for LVLMs .

Furthermore, the paper conducts extensive evaluations on over 10 representative LVLMs, including GPT-4o and Gemini-Vision-Pro, to provide an in-depth analysis of hallucination issues in existing models . The results of the evaluations reveal that while some models perform better than others, more than half of the models exhibit a hallucination rate exceeding 40%, indicating significant room for improvement in mitigating hallucination in LVLMs . Additionally, the analysis suggests that models with larger parameter sizes tend to have fewer hallucination issues, implying that parameter size may play a role in addressing the hallucination problem .

In conclusion, the experiments and results in the paper offer robust support for the scientific hypotheses related to evaluating hallucination benchmarks for LVLMs. The comprehensive evaluations, framework, and analysis provided contribute significantly to understanding and addressing the issue of hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models .


What are the contributions of this paper?

To provide a more accurate answer, could you please specify which paper you are referring to?


What work can be continued in depth?

Work that can be continued in depth typically involves projects or tasks that require further analysis, research, or development. This could include in-depth research studies, complex problem-solving initiatives, detailed data analysis, comprehensive strategic planning, or thorough product development processes. By delving deeper into these areas, you can uncover new insights, improve outcomes, and achieve more significant results.

Tables

2

Introduction
Background
Overview of LVLMs and hallucination issues
Importance of understanding and mitigating hallucinations
Objective
To propose the HQM framework
Assess reliability and validity of benchmarks
Create HQH using Visual Genome dataset
Improve existing benchmarks and model evaluation
Method
Data Collection
Visual Genome Dataset
Selection and adaptation for HQH creation
Model Evaluation
Collection of LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro
Data Preprocessing
Standardization and cleaning for benchmark assessment
Test-retest and parallel-forms analysis techniques

###HQM Framework

Reliability Analysis
Test-retest reliability
Parallel-forms analysis
Validity Analysis
Criterion coverage
Hallucination type coverage
Addressing biases and response variability
Benchmark Creation: High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH)
Dataset curation from Visual Genome
Evaluation criteria and metrics
Model Evaluation Results
Comparison of LVLMs' performance on HQH
Identification of shortcomings and trends
Implications and Recommendations
Need for comprehensive assessment methods
Addressing biases in open-ended tasks
Future directions for research and benchmark improvement
Conclusion
Summary of findings and contributions
Importance of HQM framework for the field
Call to action for researchers and developers
Basic info
papers
computer vision and pattern recognition
artificial intelligence
Advanced features
Insights
How many LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro, are evaluated using the HQH?
What framework does the paper propose to evaluate the quality of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models?
Which dataset is used to create the High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH)?
What are the main goals of the study in terms of improving AI model understanding and addressing issues with hallucinations?

Evaluating the Quality of Hallucination Benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models

Bei Yan, Jie Zhang, Zheng Yuan, Shiguang Shan, Xilin Chen·June 24, 2024

Summary

This paper evaluates the quality of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) by proposing the Hallucination Benchmark Quality Measurement (HQM) framework. The framework assesses reliability through test-retest and parallel-forms analysis, and validity through criterion and hallucination type coverage. The authors create the High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH) using the Visual Genome dataset, which evaluates over 10 LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro. The study aims to improve understanding of hallucination issues, address shortcomings in existing benchmarks, and provide a more reliable and valid tool for researchers to measure and mitigate hallucinations in AI models. Results from various benchmarks and model evaluations highlight the need for comprehensive and diverse assessment methods, as well as the importance of addressing biases and response variability in open-ended tasks.
Mind map
Addressing biases and response variability
Hallucination type coverage
Criterion coverage
Parallel-forms analysis
Test-retest reliability
Collection of LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro
Selection and adaptation for HQH creation
Validity Analysis
Reliability Analysis
Model Evaluation
Visual Genome Dataset
Improve existing benchmarks and model evaluation
Create HQH using Visual Genome dataset
Assess reliability and validity of benchmarks
To propose the HQM framework
Importance of understanding and mitigating hallucinations
Overview of LVLMs and hallucination issues
Call to action for researchers and developers
Importance of HQM framework for the field
Summary of findings and contributions
Future directions for research and benchmark improvement
Addressing biases in open-ended tasks
Need for comprehensive assessment methods
Identification of shortcomings and trends
Comparison of LVLMs' performance on HQH
Evaluation criteria and metrics
Dataset curation from Visual Genome
Data Preprocessing
Data Collection
Objective
Background
Conclusion
Implications and Recommendations
Model Evaluation Results
Benchmark Creation: High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH)
Method
Introduction
Outline
Introduction
Background
Overview of LVLMs and hallucination issues
Importance of understanding and mitigating hallucinations
Objective
To propose the HQM framework
Assess reliability and validity of benchmarks
Create HQH using Visual Genome dataset
Improve existing benchmarks and model evaluation
Method
Data Collection
Visual Genome Dataset
Selection and adaptation for HQH creation
Model Evaluation
Collection of LVLMs, including GPT-4 and Gemini-Vision-Pro
Data Preprocessing
Standardization and cleaning for benchmark assessment
Test-retest and parallel-forms analysis techniques

###HQM Framework

Reliability Analysis
Test-retest reliability
Parallel-forms analysis
Validity Analysis
Criterion coverage
Hallucination type coverage
Addressing biases and response variability
Benchmark Creation: High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH)
Dataset curation from Visual Genome
Evaluation criteria and metrics
Model Evaluation Results
Comparison of LVLMs' performance on HQH
Identification of shortcomings and trends
Implications and Recommendations
Need for comprehensive assessment methods
Addressing biases in open-ended tasks
Future directions for research and benchmark improvement
Conclusion
Summary of findings and contributions
Importance of HQM framework for the field
Call to action for researchers and developers
Key findings
19

Paper digest

What problem does the paper attempt to solve? Is this a new problem?

To provide a more accurate answer, I would need more specific information about the paper you are referring to. Please provide me with the title of the paper or a brief description of its topic so that I can assist you better.


What scientific hypothesis does this paper seek to validate?

This paper aims to validate the hypothesis related to the quality of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) . The study focuses on assessing the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks separately through various indicators . The hypothesis seeks to evaluate the degree of hallucination in LVLMs by examining the quality of existing benchmarks, identifying problems such as inconsistent evaluation results and misalignment with human evaluation, and proposing a framework for measuring the quality of hallucination benchmarks .


What new ideas, methods, or models does the paper propose? What are the characteristics and advantages compared to previous methods?

I would be happy to help analyze the new ideas, methods, or models proposed in a specific paper. Please provide me with the details or key points from the paper so that I can assist you better. I would be glad to assist in analyzing the characteristics and advantages of a specific method compared to previous methods. Kindly provide me with the details or key points from the paper so that I can offer you a more detailed analysis.


Do any related researches exist? Who are the noteworthy researchers on this topic in this field?What is the key to the solution mentioned in the paper?

Could you please specify the topic or field you are referring to so I can provide you with more accurate information?


How were the experiments in the paper designed?

To provide a detailed answer, I would need more specific information about the paper you are referring to. Could you please provide more details or context about the experiments in the paper so I can assist you better?


What is the dataset used for quantitative evaluation? Is the code open source?

To provide you with accurate information, I need more details about the specific project or research you are referring to. Could you please provide more context or details about the dataset and code you are inquiring about?


Do the experiments and results in the paper provide good support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified? Please analyze.

The experiments and results presented in the paper provide strong support for the scientific hypotheses that need to be verified regarding the evaluation of hallucination benchmarks for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) . The paper introduces a Hallucination benchmark Quality Measurement framework (HQM) that assesses the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks . Through the HQM framework, the paper evaluates the quality of both the High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH) and existing benchmarks, demonstrating that HQH exhibits the highest reliability and comparable validity to close-ended tasks, ensuring credible and meaningful hallucination evaluation for LVLMs .

Furthermore, the paper conducts extensive evaluations on over 10 representative LVLMs, including GPT-4o and Gemini-Vision-Pro, to provide an in-depth analysis of hallucination issues in existing models . The results of the evaluations reveal that while some models perform better than others, more than half of the models exhibit a hallucination rate exceeding 40%, indicating significant room for improvement in mitigating hallucination in LVLMs . Additionally, the analysis suggests that models with larger parameter sizes tend to have fewer hallucination issues, implying that parameter size may play a role in addressing the hallucination problem .

In conclusion, the experiments and results in the paper offer robust support for the scientific hypotheses related to evaluating hallucination benchmarks for LVLMs. The comprehensive evaluations, framework, and analysis provided contribute significantly to understanding and addressing the issue of hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models .


What are the contributions of this paper?

To provide a more accurate answer, could you please specify which paper you are referring to?


What work can be continued in depth?

Work that can be continued in depth typically involves projects or tasks that require further analysis, research, or development. This could include in-depth research studies, complex problem-solving initiatives, detailed data analysis, comprehensive strategic planning, or thorough product development processes. By delving deeper into these areas, you can uncover new insights, improve outcomes, and achieve more significant results.

Tables
2
Scan the QR code to ask more questions about the paper
© 2025 Powerdrill. All rights reserved.