FTII-Bench: A Comprehensive Multimodal Benchmark for Flow Text with Image Insertion
Le résumé fourni par la source
Benefiting from the revolutionary advances in large language models (LLMs) and foundational vision models, large vision-language models (LVLMs) have also made significant progress. However, current benchmarks focus on tasks that evaluating only a single aspect of LVLM capabilities (e.g., recognition, detection, understanding). These tasks fail to fully demonstrate LVLMs' potential in complex application scenarios. To comprehensively assess the performance of existing LVLMs, we propose a more challenging task called the Flow Text with Image Insertion task (FTII). This task requires LVLMs to simultaneously possess outstanding abilities in image comprehension, instruction understanding, and long-text interpretation. Specifically, given several text paragraphs and a set of candidate images, as the text paragraphs accumulate, the LVLMs are required to select the most suitable image from the candidates to insert after the corresponding paragraph. Constructing a benchmark for such a task is highly challenging, particularly in determining the sequence of flowing text and images. To address this challenge, we turn to professional news reports, which naturally contain a gold standard for image-text sequences. Based on this, we introduce the Flow Text with Image Insertion Benchmark (FTII-Bench), which includes 318 high-quality Chinese image-text news articles and 307 high-quality English image-text news articles, covering 10 different news domains. Using these 625 high-quality articles, we construct problems of two different types with multiple levels of difficulty. Furthermore, we establish two different evaluation pipelines based on the CLIP model and existing LVLMs. We evaluate 9 open-source and 2 closed-source LVLMs as well as 2 CLIP-based models. Results indicate that even the most advanced models (e.g., GPT-4o) face significant challenges when tackling the FTII task.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.