MiSCHiEF: A Benchmark in Minimal-Pairs of Safety and Culture for Holistic Evaluation of Fine-Grained Image-Caption Alignment
Organizations: Algoverse AI Research · PocketFM
Abstract
Fine-grained image-caption alignment is crucial for vision-language models (VLMs), especially in socially critical contexts such as identifying real-world risk scenarios or distinguishing cultural proxies, where correct interpretation hinges on subtle visual or linguistic clues and where minor misinterpretations can lead to significant real-world consequences. We present MiSCHiEF, a set of two benchmarking datasets based on a contrastive pair design in the domains of safety (MiS) and culture (MiC), and evaluate four VLMs on tasks requiring fine-grained differentiation of paired images and captions. In both datasets, each sample contains two minimally differing captions and corresponding minimally differing images. In MiS, the image-caption pairs depict a safe and an unsafe scenario, while in MiC, they depict cultural proxies in two distinct cultural contexts. We find that models generally perform better at confirming the correct image-caption pair than rejecting incorrect ones. Additionally, models achieve higher accuracy when selecting the correct caption from two highly similar captions for a given image, compared to the converse task. The results, overall, highlight persistent modality misalignment challenges in current VLMs, underscoring the difficulty of precise cross-modal grounding required for applications with subtle semantic and visual distinctions.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Pairing Type | Caption | Image | Expected Model Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiS | Congruent A (Con A ) | Safe | Safe | Yes |
| Incongruent A (Inc A ) | Safe | Unsafe | No | |
| Congruent B (Con B ) | Unsafe | Unsafe | Yes | |
| Incongruent B (Inc B ) | Unsafe | Safe | No | |
| MiC | Congruent A (Con A ) | Culture A | Culture A | Yes |
| Incongruent A (Inc A ) | Culture A | Culture B | No |
| C2I | DCI | PC | I2C | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Con A | Inc A | Con B | Inc B | |||||
| MiC | Qwen 3B | 62.72 | 47.31 | 99.64 | 66.67 | 98.57 | 58.42 | 87.46 |
| InternVL | 70.61 | 41.58 | 86.38 | 66.67 | 86.74 | 64.16 | 37.99 | |
| Phi 3.5 | 82.80 | 57.71 | 98.21 | 57.71 | 97.13 | 41.94 | 79.93 | |
| Llava-Next-Video | 47.67 | 50.18 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 28.74 | |
| GPT-4o | 93.24 | 57.47 | 83.16 | 86.24 | 76.32 | 82.75 | 86.24 | |
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.