Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates model-specific preference bias in MLLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methods, which are increasingly used for automatic evaluation of multimodal models. They introduce Philautia-Eval to disentangle preference tendencies from generation quality differences, using a dataset of 1.29M caption-score pairs from 12 MLLMs. Results show that MLLMs exhibit self-preference bias and mutual preference bias within model families, which can be mitigated by a simple ensemble method called Pomms.
Turns out, your MLLM judge is probably biased: MLLMs tend to prefer their own generations and those from similar architectures, potentially skewing benchmark results.
Automatic evaluation using multimodal large language models (MLLMs), commonly referred to as MLLM-as-a-Judge, has been widely used to measure model performance. If such MLLM-as-a-Judge methods were biased, they could distort model comparisons and benchmark-driven scientific progress. However, it remains unclear to what extent MLLM-as-a-Judge methods favor or disfavor text generated by specific MLLMs. In this study, we propose Philautia-Eval to investigate such model-specific preference bias. Philautia-Eval quantifies the degree of the bias by disentangling preference tendencies from differences in generation quality. Using 1.29M caption-score pairs collected from 12 MLLMs, we found that representative MLLMs tend to exhibit self-preference bias. Moreover, experimental results indicate mutual preference bias within particular model families, which is potentially driven by reused connectors and overlapping instruction-tuning resources. Finally, we introduce a simple ensemble of MLLMs, Pomms. Our results demonstrated that Pomms effectively mitigated the model-specific preference bias while maintaining performance.
