Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces a novel benchmark for evaluating visual evidence identification in multi-view multimodal large language models (MLLMs) specifically within the context of autonomous driving. By focusing on the ability of models to correctly identify the supporting camera view from synchronized visual inputs, the authors highlight the critical distinction between answer accuracy and the validity of the visual evidence used. The benchmark reveals significant grounding failures, demonstrating that models often produce correct answers while relying on incorrect visual sources, which can have serious implications for safety in autonomous driving applications.
Grounding failures in MLLMs can lead to plausible but unsafe answers in autonomous driving scenarios, exposing a critical flaw in current evaluation methods.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong results on visual reasoning benchmarks, but answer accuracy alone does not indicate whether a model relied on the correct visual evidence. This gap is particularly important in multi-view driving scenes used for autonomous driving, where a model can produce a plausible answer while grounding it in the wrong camera view. We introduce a multi-view visual question answering benchmark for evaluating evidence-source identification: given six synchronized NuScenes views and a question, the model must identify the supporting camera view and answer the question. The benchmark contains 122 conflict-centric question-answer pairs from 73 scenes, spanning causality, counterfactual reasoning, and intent prediction. View labels are proposed by an automatic conflict-mining pipeline and manually verified by annotators. We evaluate three settings: camera-view selection, oracle QA given the golden view, and joint prediction in which the model selects a view and answers in one pass. Answers are evaluated in both multiple-choice and free-form formats, using exact match for structured predictions and an LLM judge for free-form responses. By explicitly separating visual-source identification from answer correctness, the benchmark exposes grounding failures that answer-only evaluation misses.