arXiv AI
MMPCBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models on Proactive Critique of Flawed Inputs
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Computer Vision
3d ago
Think, Look, and Revise: Inconsistency-Aware Visual Self-Correction in MLLMs
arXiv:2608.29374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented multimodal reasoning integrates external tools (e.g., object detection, depth estimation) into multimodal large language models (MLLMs)...
arXiv AI
Jul 17
Contextualized Evaluation of Vision Language Models through Dynamic, Multi-turn Interactions
arXiv:2607. 14499v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made substantial advances on benchmarks, yet their real-world effectiveness remains uncertain.
arXiv AI
Jul 16
Advancing Multimodal Judge Models through a Capability-Oriented Benchmark and MCTS-Driven Data Generation
arXiv:2603. 00546v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27
From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations
The paper introduces DEDUCE, a three‑stage framework that turns large language models into proactive error correctors by detecting input fact errors, devising correction strategies, and delivering reliable answers. It also presents MisFactQA, a dataset of factual errors, and new metrics for robustness evaluation. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and MisFactQA show significant gains in accuracy and error correction across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma models.
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 26
DoublesEval: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Tactical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Professional Doubles Badminton
The paper introduces DoublesEval, a diagnostic framework that uses professional doubles badminton to test visual‑language models’ ability to reason about dynamic multi‑agent interactions. It decomposes rallies into key moments and evaluates models across four dimensions—atomic recognition, intra‑segment composite understanding, cross‑segment causal reasoning, and high‑level tactical abstraction—highlighting specific reasoning failures. The authors also propose TacticCheck, a lightweight consistency checker that improves performance without retraining the models, yet significant gaps remain in tactical reasoning.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 25
DoublesEval: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Tactical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Professional Doubles Badminton
Visual Language Models (VLMs) excel at describing visible scene content but struggle to reason about dynamic multi-agent interactions, where action semantics depend on coordinated roles and spatial-te...