Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs, undermining their reliability. A comprehensive quantitative evaluation is necessary to identify and understand the extent of hallucinations in these models. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. Furthermore, current evaluation methods struggle to effectively address the subtle semantic distinctions between model outputs and reference data, as well as the balance between hallucination and informativeness. To address these issues, we introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases. Moreover, we propose a large language model (LLM)-based two-stage evaluation framework that generalizes the popular CHAIR metric and incorporates both faithfulness and coverage into the evaluation. Experiments on 10 established LVLMs demonstrate that our evaluation metric is more comprehensive and better correlated with humans than existing work when evaluating on our challenging human-annotated benchmark dataset. Our work also highlights the critical balance between faithfulness and coverage of model outputs, and encourages future works to address hallucinations in LVLMs while keeping their outputs informative.

Ensuring factual consistency is crucial for natural language generation tasks, particularly in abstractive summarization, where preserving the integrity of information is paramount. Prior works on evaluating factual consistency of summarization often take the entailment-based approaches that first generate perturbed (factual inconsistent) summaries and then train a classifier on the generated data to detect the factually inconsistencies during testing time. However, previous approaches generating perturbed summaries are either of low coherence or lack error-type coverage. To address these issues, we propose AMRFact, a framework that generates perturbed summaries using Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs). Our approach parses factually consistent summaries into AMR graphs and injects controlled factual inconsistencies to create negative examples, allowing for coherent factually inconsistent summaries to be generated with high error-type coverage. Additionally, we present a data selection module NegFilter based on natural language inference and BARTScore to ensure the quality of the generated negative samples. Experimental results demonstrate our approach significantly outperforms previous systems on the AggreFact-SOTA benchmark, showcasing its efficacy in evaluating factuality of abstractive summarization.

Model-based evaluation metrics (e.g., CLIPScore and GPTScore) have demonstrated decent correlations with human judgments in various language generation tasks. However, their impact on fairness remains largely unexplored. It is widely recognized that pretrained models can inadvertently encode societal biases, thus employing these models for evaluation purposes may inadvertently perpetuate and amplify biases. For example, an evaluation metric may favor the caption “a woman is calculating an account book” over “a man is calculating an account book,” even if the image only shows male accountants. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based automatic evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We start by curating a dataset comprising profession, activity, and object concepts associated with stereotypical gender associations. Then, we demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations, as well as the propagation of biases to generation models through reinforcement learning. Finally, we present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments. Our dataset and framework lay the foundation for understanding the potential harm of model-based evaluation metrics, and facilitate future works to develop more inclusive evaluation metrics.