REVIEW 1 cited by
Dissecting Dissonance: Benchmarking Large Multimodal Models Against Self-Contradictory Instructions
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
read the original abstract
Large multimodal models (LMMs) excel in adhering to human instructions. However, self-contradictory instructions may arise due to the increasing trend of multimodal interaction and context length, which is challenging for language beginners and vulnerable populations. We introduce the Self-Contradictory Instructions benchmark to evaluate the capability of LMMs in recognizing conflicting commands. It comprises 20,000 conflicts, evenly distributed between language and vision paradigms. It is constructed by a novel automatic dataset creation framework, which expedites the process and enables us to encompass a wide range of instruction forms. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals current LMMs consistently struggle to identify multimodal instruction discordance due to a lack of self-awareness. Hence, we propose the Cognitive Awakening Prompting to inject cognition from external, largely enhancing dissonance detection. The dataset and code are here: https://selfcontradiction.github.io/.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability
Large multimodal models mostly fail to proactively detect flawed textual premises, and their performance depends on error type and on how they weight text versus images.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.