arXiv (All)
open access
Unexplored flaws in multiple-choice VQA make benchmarking unreliable
Previous works identify sensitivity to option order as a key issue in multiple-choice VQA (MC-VQA) evaluation and propose protocols to mitigate this effect. We show that such mitigation is insufficient to ensure the validity of MC-VQA as a reliable benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Group Preference Collapse in Personalized Multimodal Large Language Models#1143853
- VLM-Guided Experience Replay#1117317
- FriendBench: Benchmarking Dyadic Familiarity Inference in Humans and Multimodal Large Language Models#422284
- Multiple latent orderings better predict language model preferences#1036853
- Reading Right, Answering Wrong: How Visual Configuration Changes Affect Evidence Use in VLMs#1061402
Record · ID 1014572
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive