Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A-Bench: Are LMMs Masters at Evaluating AI-generated Images?

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 2406.03070 v2 pith:J3XSTYHN submitted 2024-06-05 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords aigislmmsa-benchmodelsai-generatedaigibenchmarkevaluating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

How to accurately and efficiently assess AI-generated images (AIGIs) remains a critical challenge for generative models. Given the high costs and extensive time commitments required for user studies, many researchers have turned towards employing large multi-modal models (LMMs) as AIGI evaluators, the precision and validity of which are still questionable. Furthermore, traditional benchmarks often utilize mostly natural-captured content rather than AIGIs to test the abilities of LMMs, leading to a noticeable gap for AIGIs. Therefore, we introduce A-Bench in this paper, a benchmark designed to diagnose whether LMMs are masters at evaluating AIGIs. Specifically, A-Bench is organized under two key principles: 1) Emphasizing both high-level semantic understanding and low-level visual quality perception to address the intricate demands of AIGIs. 2) Various generative models are utilized for AIGI creation, and various LMMs are employed for evaluation, which ensures a comprehensive validation scope. Ultimately, 2,864 AIGIs from 16 text-to-image models are sampled, each paired with question-answers annotated by human experts, and tested across 18 leading LMMs. We hope that A-Bench will significantly enhance the evaluation process and promote the generation quality for AIGIs. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/Q-Future/A-Bench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Who is a Better Talker: Subjective and Objective Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Talking Heads

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new large dataset and the FSCD model improve automated quality scoring of AI-generated talking-head videos, beating 15 baselines in correlation with human ratings.

  2. Interpretable and Reliable Detection of AI-Generated Images via Grounded Reasoning in MLLMs

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning Qwen-2.5-VL on the new FakeXplained dataset of 8,772 AI-generated images with box-and-caption artifact annotations yields an explainable detector with 98.1% accuracy and 37.8% IoU.

  3. Affordance Benchmark for MLLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 2,000-question benchmark finds multimodal AI models recognize object affordances far worse than humans, with top model Gemini-2.0-Pro at 18.05% versus 85.34% human best.

Pith tools