Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces MM-JudgeBias, a benchmark to evaluate compositional biases in MLLMs used as automatic evaluators, focusing on how they integrate visual and textual cues. The benchmark uses controlled perturbations across query, image, and response modalities to assess sensitivity (Bias-Deviation) and stability (Bias-Conformity). Experiments on 26 MLLMs reveal modality neglect and asymmetric evaluation tendencies, highlighting the unreliability of current MLLM judges.
MLLM judges are surprisingly unreliable, exhibiting systematic biases and instability when integrating visual and textual cues, even under semantically irrelevant perturbations.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges fail to reliably integrate key visual or textual cues, yielding unreliable evaluations when evidence is missing or mismatched, and exhibiting instability under semantically irrelevant perturbations. To address this, we systematically define Compositional Bias in MLLM-as-a-Judge systems and introduce MM-JudgeBias, a benchmark for evaluating it. MM-JudgeBias introduces controlled perturbations across Query, Image, and Response, and evaluates model behavior via two complementary metrics: Bias-Deviation (BD) for sensitivity and Bias-Conformity (BC) for stability. Our dataset of over 1,800 curated and refined multimodal samples, drawn from 29 source benchmarks, enables a fine-grained diagnosis of nine bias types across diverse tasks and domains. Experiments on 26 state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal systematic modality neglect and asymmetric evaluation tendencies, underscoring the need for more reliable judges.