Auditing VLM Benchmarks from Existing Evaluation Runs
cs.CV
Submitted: 2026-10-09
Updated: 2026-10-09
Comments: 11 pages, 5 figures. Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop TAE (Trust-AI-Eval): Can We Trust AI Evaluation? (non-archival). Code and artifacts: https://github.com/avos-rnd/vlm-bench
Code: https://github.com/avos-rnd/vlm-bench
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Every evaluation run of a vision-language model (VLM) already produces per-question artifacts (predictions, judged correctness, metadata) that leaderboards reduce to a single score and then discard.
Terminology
Abstract
Every evaluation run of a vision-language model (VLM) already produces per-question artifacts (predictions, judged correctness, metadata) that leaderboards reduce to a single score and then discard. We reuse those artifacts to audit the benchmark itself, and add an audit layer to VLMEvalKit: six detectors that run as post-processing over saved outputs, plus one additional text-only rerun with visual inputs removed, emitting a per-question report. The layer reports per-question findings together with aggregate audit statistics; for the headline quantities, it attaches permutation-null excess where applicable, interval estimates for proportions, and sensitivity to the model pool. Auditing MMStar, a benchmark curated specifically so that the image is indispensable, with three models, we find zero aggregate accuracy gain from the image on 20.2% of its questions. An item-matched permutation null accounts for 17.0%, leaving a +3.2 pp excess (corrected permutation p = 0.001). This excess is concentrated in the mathematics and science categories and is absent from coarse perception, a localization consistent with knowledge substituting for visual evidence; confirming that mechanism would require item-level review. A second detector flags 134 questions on which every model that answered in parseable form picked the same non-gold option, and these candidates peak in the perception categories, whereas the zero-gain excess is largest in mathematics and science & technology. Replacing the LLM judge with exact string matching changes no conclusion, and every scoring discrepancy between the two traces to one model whose free-form answers a parser cannot read. On a binary yes/no benchmark the detectors measurably fall out of calibration, a scope boundary that we measure and report. The audit layer, the prediction artifacts and the generated reports accompany this submission.
Sources
- BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks
- Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating Large Vision-Language Models?
- VLMEvalKit: An Open-Source Toolkit for Evaluating Large Multi-Modality Models
- Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering
- HallusionBench: An Advanced Diagnostic Suite for Entangled Language Hallucination and Visual Illusion in Large Vision-Language Models
- MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation
- DatBench: Discriminative, Faithful, and Efficient VLM Evaluations
- Correlated Errors in Large Language Models
- NaturalBench: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Natural Adversarial Samples
- Information Density Principle for MLLM Benchmarks
- MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?
- Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarks
- Unexplored flaws in multiple-choice VQA make benchmarking unreliable
- Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark
- Both Text and Images Leaked! A Systematic Analysis of Data Contamination in Multimodal LLM
- Fantastic Bugs and Where to Find Them in AI Benchmarks
- Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability?
- LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models
- Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors
- Diagnosing Visual Ignorance in Vision-Language Models
Related papers
- Loss Knows Best: Detecting Annotation Errors in Videos via Loss Trajectories
- AnchorWeave: World-Consistent Video Generation with Retrieved Local Spatial Memories
- Benchmarking the Robustness of Foundation Models for Mammography under Domain Shift
- MambaX-Net: Dual-Input Mamba-Enhanced Cross-Attention Network for Longitudinal MRI Segmentation
- TeleOCR: Navigating Document Parsing Across Digital and Camera-Captured Documents
- A Survey on Efficient Vision-Language-Action Models