Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

6 papers in the last four weeks, with none the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 23

Oct 7, 2026cs.CV

Visual Jev Rewards: Reference-Bound Verification for Multi-Subject Image Generation

Multi-subject image generation requires rewards that verify whether requested attributes, actions, and relations hold for the specified reference subjects. Subject presence alone does not establish that the correct subjects participate in a requested interaction. We present reference-bound Visual Jev rewards that turn these visual decisions into generator training signals. Each subject-related question receives a positive label only when the requested condition and the relevant reference identities hold jointly. We construct fixed questions offline, train a Qwen3.5-4B verifier with binary supervision, and directly read Yes probabilities from its language-model head. Their mean supplies a GRPO reward while retaining individual judgments for inspection. Using 200 MICo-150K training tasks and 30 updates, the framework raises a GPT-5.4 composite score from 41.78 to 52.50 on a manually selected 897-task MICo-Bench subset; direct 27B rewards yield 51.84. Each reward is tested in one GRPO run, and offline human evaluation does not establish a statistically significant advantage over direct scoring. The study provides an initial implementation and evaluation of Visual Jev as a reference-bound reward for multi-subject image generation.

Baoteng Li, Wenzhuo Wu, Kongming Liang +1

School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications1 · Beijing Key Laboratory of Multimodal Data Intelligent Perception and Governance2

Reward Modeling Image Generation Evaluation Image Generation RL for Image Generation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Oct 1, 2026cs.CV

Do MLLM Judges Judge the Edit? Auditing Bias in Image Editing Evaluation with Verified Quality Preservation

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for instruction-based image editing and as reward signals for model training. However, systematically auditing whether these judges are influenced by cues irrelevant to editing quality is challenging because visual interventions may themselves alter the quality being evaluated. A judgment shift can therefore be attributed to bias only when the intervention is verified to preserve the underlying editing quality. To address this challenge, we introduce EditJudgeBias, a counterfactual benchmark with verified quality preservation, comprising 1,196 real editing samples and 13 cues injected across four evaluation sites. We verify quality preservation for the requested edit using calibrated multimodal validators, controls, and human inspection. We then audit five MLLM judges along three complementary dimensions: invariance to quality-preserving cues, agreement with human judgments, and stability of pairwise preferences. Importantly, observed shifts are evaluated against each judge's own zero-dose and re-query noise floors rather than against zero. Experiments show that quality-preserving cues move every judge beyond its own noise. Fabricated majority opinions increase ratings, irrelevant visual elements cause larger shifts than whole-image manipulations, and swapping candidate order reverses up to 60.9% of pairwise decisions. Edit-region cues also tend to reduce human agreement. The three measures characterize judges differently, showing that robustness cannot be captured by a single metric.

Yuan Huang, Zirui Song, Xiuying Chen

Northeastern University · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence

VLM Robustness LLM-as-a-Judge Image Editing Evaluation Counterfactual Evaluation of VLMs LLM Auditing Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge+1

Oct 1, 2026cs.CV

When the Judge Acts: Auditing VLM-Guided Image Selection on Culturally Situated Prompts

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly act as judges that pick the best of several generated images, so their choices decide what users see. Such judges are usually validated by score agreement with human ratings, not by the images they return. We audit VLM judges as decision-makers: on 300 culturally situated prompts, we compare the returned image with human ratings the judge never sees and with random choice from the same candidates, and repeat every decision with the candidates reordered. A 4B-parameter judge barely beats random and falls short of a CLIP similarity baseline. It picks the first image shown in 49% of calls (chance: 28%), and reordering changes its choice on 60% of prompts. For this judge, agreement across orders is informative: decisions that survive reordering are much better than random, whereas agreement with a weaker second judge keeps the wrong ones. An 8B judge shows almost no position bias and outperforms CLIP, yet for it the same filter mostly discards good decisions. Agreement helps only when it targets the judge's failure mode, so filters must be re-audited whenever the judge changes. The 4B judge's slight rise in stereotype ratings is no longer detectable after aggregating across orders or with the larger judge.

Huichan Seo

Independent Researcher

VLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Sep 30, 2026cs.CV

VisionQ: VLM-as-a-Judge Taxonomy, Dataset and Benchmark for Qualitative Analysis in Computer Vision

Qualitative comparison figures are central evidence in computer vision papers, and vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to judge them. Yet existing benchmarks score only scalar quality or overall preference, so a judge can be rewarded for picking the preferred image for the wrong visual reason. We introduce VisionQ, the first benchmark built from peer-reviewed CV comparison figures that grounds every judgment in a named visual criterion: each question states the criterion, and a judge is credited only when it selects the output the authors identify as best on that criterion. We call this task criterion-conditioned visual discrimination. VisionQ comprises (1) a corpus of 1,409 CVPR and ICCV papers with 1,800+ validated comparison figures and 3,911 hand-annotated data points linking method crops to author-stated visual claims; (2) a six-axis, 51-leaf taxonomy of the visual criteria behind qualitative judgment; (3) a criterion-conditioned evaluation protocol that hides method names, captions, and paper identity and reports accuracy per criterion; and (4) VisionQ-Judge, a DPO-tuned Gemma-4-E4B judge trained on symmetric evidence pairs, which reduces last-option predictions by 7.0pp and improves accuracy by 2.5pp on a held-out test set. Evaluating 20 open- and closed-source VLM judges, we find that the strongest reach only 63.1% accuracy (chance 32.2%) and that reliability varies sharply across criteria. Code: https://github.com/ReML-AI/visionq. Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/visionq-anon-2026/VisionQ-1k.

Vu Dinh Xuan, Duc-Hai Nguyen, Minh-Dung Dao +6

University of Information Technology, VNU-HCM, Vietnam · University College Cork, Ireland · Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam +1

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

It's Not What the Image Shows: Irrelevant Context Destabilises VLM Judges Without Informing Them

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used in place of human annotators, making it important that substitutability tests reflect the model rather than incidental evaluation conditions. We introduce MIST, the Misleading-Image Stress Test: 200 English sentences, each built around a phrase readable either figuratively or literally and shown with an aligned image depicting its reading, a misleading image depicting the opposite, or no image at all. The guidelines require the label to be decided from the sentence alone, so no image should change any answer. We expected each image to pull a judge's labels toward the sense it depicts, and neither kind did. Across thirteen VLM judges, an aligned image changed 20.5% of labels and a misleading one 19.4%, close for every judge and both above the 11.6% produced by deleting the ignore-the-image instruction with the image left in place. Yet only 37% of the labels that differ between the two images moved toward the sense shown, and agreement with our human annotators is unchanged whether the image is absent, aligned or misleading. The effect is smaller in the seven judges that pass the alt-test than in the six that never do, but present in all of them: what moves a judge is that an image is there, not which of the two it is, so a substitutability verdict describes a configuration as much as a model.

Nagham Omar, Mahmoud Jabarin, Kinan Ibraheem +1

Faculty of Data and Decision Sciences, Technion

VLM Evaluation Figurative Language Understanding VLM Robustness Counterfactual Evaluation of VLMs Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Sep 22, 2026cs.CV

Feed the Panel Dimensions, Not Verdicts: Rubric-Decomposed Fusion of Vision-Language Aesthetic Judges

Vision-language models (VLMs) are deployed as zero-shot judges of image aesthetics, and panels of several models are recommended, on thin evidence, as the way to make such judges reliable. On two human-rated datasets, EVA and PARA, we find that a panel of holistic judges never significantly beats its best member, whether the verdicts are averaged or fused by a learned combiner. What a panel is worth depends on what it is fed. We therefore have each model score each image on the five dimensions of a frozen, human-written rubric and fuse those scores, alongside each model's verdict, across model families with an out-of-fold combiner. The dimension scores measure what their labels claim: with the overall human score partialled out, a dimension prompt carries more attribute-specific information than the holistic prompt in 28 of 30 model-attribute cells. Fused, they beat the best single VLM in all ten three-family panels on EVA (against that best single model, +0.07 Spearman rho for the strongest trio and +0.10 for the pre-declared one, and +0.06 and +0.07 when averaged over twenty fold partitions; against the panel mean, the primary test gives +0.118 on its EVA design set), and on PARA they reach parity under Spearman rho and a small, non-significant loss under Kendall tau-b, where one model already captures 85% of the human noise ceiling. It is not a feature-count artefact: giving the same combiner an equal number of pure holistic columns, split from the same repetitions, does not reproduce it. The gain costs a few hundred labels, which do not transfer between datasets, and 4.8x the API calls on EVA; we report it with paired bootstraps and Kendall tau-b, alongside a failed pre-registration and the configurations that lost.

Amit Jadhav, Shaurya Beriwala, Beomjin Kim

Purdue University Fort Wayne

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Models Rubric-Based Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Sep 21, 2026cs.CV

ChartJudgeBench: Evaluating LMM Judges for Chart-to-Code Generation

Building strong chart-to-code systems increasingly relies on reinforcement learning, whose effectiveness depends critically on the quality of the reward signal. Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) play a natural critical role in jointly assessing chart visual appearance and task requirements. They are therefore increasingly used as visual critics and reward models, yet their reliability as judges remains largely unexplored. To this end, we introduce ChartJudgeBench, a diagnostic vision-language benchmark for assessing LMM judges in chart-to-code workflows. It includes 1,003 Chart Perception Alignment (CPA) instances for pairwise chart comparison and 650 Chart Reasoning Judgment (CRJ) instances for binary Accept/Reject verification in Chart Reproduction and Chart Editing. Together, these tasks emulate the core judging decisions required in agentic refinement and RL-based chart optimization. Our evaluation of strong LMMs reveals four systematic limitations: (i) positional bias in pairwise comparison, (ii) a strong tendency to overpredict Accept, (iii) difficulty in matching visual styles and aesthetics, and (iv) an unexpected leniency bias in RL-trained models. These findings show that current LMM judges require explicit reliability validation before being used as critics or reward models in chart-to-code optimization. The code and data are available on ChartJudgeBench.

Lijian Wu, Henry Hengyuan Zhao, Zijian Zhang +3

CSU-JPG, Central South University · National University of Singapore

VLM Evaluation LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Code Generation LLM Reliability Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Aug 8, 2026cs.CV

Forged Peer Judgments Mislead Multimodal LLM Judge Panels: Source-Blind Anchoring and Panel-Consensus Verification

Multimodal LLM judge panels can cross-reference peers, but a quoted peer judgment may itself be untrusted. We expose source-blind anchoring as a text-level attack surface in vision-language model (VLM) panels. Quoting independent visual judgments creates large anchoring gaps (19--26 percentage points) under both self and peer framing. A matched-content, label-only control changes the broken rate by only

-0.17

pp (95% CI

[-0.68,0.35]

), showing that the self/peer label itself does not explain the effect. Under our tested construction, deliberately generated, concise wrong quotes overturn originally-correct verdicts 1.5--2.7

\times

more often than naturally occurring wrong peer statements, with bootstrap 95% CIs excluding parity across two datasets and seven VLM judges. Because the two statement populations differ in selection and form, this ratio measures differential damage under the tested attack rather than a provenance-only causal effect. We then introduce panel-consensus verification, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes. It blocks 84.9% of fabricated attacks, cuts their net harm by 97.5%, and preserves the positive but statistically inconclusive point estimate for genuine peer information under leave-one-out re-verification. These results identify a low-cost attack surface and a concrete defense for safer multimodal collaborative evaluation.

Yang Shu

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Multimodal Model Evaluation

Jun 22, 2026cs.CV

Each Judge Its Own Yardstick: Discovering Per-VLM Taxonomies for Physical Video Evaluation

Maintaining physical consistency in video generators and world models increasingly relies on vision-language models (VLMs) as automated judges that provide reward signals, ranking decisions, and data-filtering criteria. Yet VLMs differ substantially in training data and architecture, encoding physical phenomena through distinct internal representations. A single global evaluation schema therefore gives every VLM the same axes of competence, regardless of what each can actually perceive. We propose JudgeFit, an iterative refinement procedure that discovers a per-VLM evaluation taxonomy. An initial taxonomy is constructed by prompting the target VLM to enumerate physics errors on a small set of videos and clustering the resulting descriptions. The taxonomy is then refined through a diagnostic step: we calibrate the VLM's per-dimension scores to human physical-commonsense ratings, diagnose which dimensions it scores unreliably or redundantly, and prompt an LLM to repair them, iterating until convergence. We further instantiate this procedure as a benchmark and apply it to 16 VLMs spanning eight model families. The refined taxonomy outperforms the global-schema baseline on held-out videos for every VLM tested, with a mean relative improvement of approximately 32%. Beyond aggregate accuracy, the per-VLM profiles expose model-specific blind spots that overall rankings cannot anticipate, with reliability patterns differing markedly across model families.

Yu Cao, Ziquan Liu, Zhensong Zhang +3

Queen Mary University of London · Huawei Darwin Research Center · Imperial College London

VLM Evaluation Physical Consistency in Video Generation Vision-Language Models Video-Language Model Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge VLM Calibration+1

Jun 18, 2026cs.LG

Judging to Improve: A De-biased VLM-as-3D-Judge Protocol for Single-Image 3D Generation

A companion study established a de-biased, cross-model VLM-as-3D-judge that reliably ranks single-image-to-3D mesh quality where cheap geometry and CLIP proxies fall short. This paper asks: can that judge's preferences specialize a strong open generator, TRELLIS, on one asset class (furniture), cheaply and without human labels? Taking the judge from ranking to optimization is where the work lives. Pushing a VLM judge into the training and evaluation loop exposes failure modes ranking never triggered, so our contribution is an optimization-grade hardening of the judge: a training judge (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) held distinct from an evaluation judge (InternVL3-8B) to break circularity; position-bias correction; and fixes for three failure modes (image overload, geometry-hiding splat renders, and reference-free judging that rewards clean-but-wrong outputs), with calibration evidence (clear-gap win-rate 0.83-1.0; base-vs-base ~0.5). Using this protocol as an independent evaluator, and working only from public models and data with lightweight parameter-efficient adaptation, we find our methods match the strong base rather than exceed it. Independent base samples carry essentially no learnable preference (0.94 order-flip rate), so signal must be engineered by quality-contrastive construction. Across six adaptation methods, two input regimes, and a severity sweep, the most targeted - conditioner repair under severe degradation - reaches parity (0.50) with the base, while no method clears the >=65% win-rate target. The result is mechanistic: clean inputs saturate the judge, flow-DIT fine-tuning washes out through the sampler, and conditioning repair is the locus that moves geometry. Win-rates are directional at n=8 objects. Matching a strong public-data base with cheap adaptation is itself informative: exceeding it needs more than lightweight PEFT on public data, and the judge protocol is reusable.

Ali Asaria, Tony Salomone, Deep Gandhi

Transformer Lab

VLM Evaluation 3D Asset Generation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

TimeVista: Exploring and Exploiting Vision-Language Models as Judges for Time Series Forecasting

High-quality time series forecasting is pivotal for real-world decision-making. However, traditional point-wise metrics often fail to reveal complex temporal patterns and align poorly with human intuitive preferences. While the ''LLM-as-a-Judge'' paradigm has revolutionized text evaluation by providing flexible, human-aligned judgment, its application to time series remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we leverage Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as judges for time series forecasting, harnessing their ability to comprehend time series plots grounded in textual information. Specifically, we propose a novel framework integrating micro- and macro-level judgments informed by contextual information to evaluate time series forecasting. To this end, we introduce TimeVista, a comprehensive VLM-as-a-Judge benchmark comprising 5563 time series samples paired with detailed evaluation rubrics. Extensive meta-evaluations demonstrate that VLMs are highly reliable judges, achieving significantly higher consistency with human preferences than conventional metrics. Building upon our benchmark, we comprehensively assess recent Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) under the VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. Our results demonstrate that VLMs serve as robust and interpretable judges, providing a comprehensive, human-aligned standard for evaluating time series models.

Zhi Chen, Yuxuan Wang, Jialong Wu +5

School of Software, BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

VLM Evaluation Forecasting Benchmarks Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Time-Series Foundation Models

May 31, 2026cs.CV

TECCI: Tricky Edits of Collected and Curated Images

Despite tremendous recent progress, current text-guided image editing methods still struggle with many aspects of editing involving instruction following, minimally editing the source image, and ensuring high visual quality. These problems are especially apparent when the requested edit is challenging, such as those that involve position, motion, viewpoint, scale and creative edits. To systematically test generative image editors, we propose a novel image editing benchmark -- TECCI: Tricky Edits of Collected and Curated Images. TECCI consists of a completely new set of images we are releasing. The images in TECCI span 7 image categories. The images and these categories were curated intentionally to target weaknesses of existing methods. The edit instructions in TECCI are automatically generated by Gemini, covering 5 edit types per source image. We also curated a set of 530 images for which we created challenging manually written edit instructions. Overall, TECCI contains 7550 pairs of images and edit instructions. We conduct human evaluations of five leading image editing models on TECCI. Humans judge outputs along three dimensions: 1) instruction following, 2) minimality of the edits, and 3) visual quality. To scale-up the evaluation, we also build an auto-rater using Gemini that achieves 74.7% accuracy in matching human evaluations. Our evaluations reveal that: 1) none of the models exceed a 22% overall success rate, demonstrating the challenging nature of TECCI, 2) Nano Banana Pro is the best performing model overall, 3) models perform significantly better at instruction following compared to minimal edits and visual quality, 4) models struggle with editing architecture and nature images which require strong understanding of spatial layout and intricate visual details. 5) reasoning and creative edits are the most difficult, whereas color and appearance edits are the easiest.

Aishwarya Agrawal, Roy Hirsch, Yasumasa Onoe +2

Google Research · Google DeepMind

VLM Evaluation Image Editing Evaluation Text-Guided Image Editing Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

May 29, 2026cs.CL

A Visually Impaired Assistance Benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation

AI-based Visually Impaired Assistance (VIA) remains challenging, largely due to the high cost of human evaluation. The VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm may offer a promising alternative, although it has mostly been studied in general domains. We therefore ask whether such judges can be trusted for VIA tasks. To investigate this question, we introduce VIABLE (Visually Impaired Assistance Benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation), the first benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge evaluation in VIA. VIABLE contains over 300K judgment samples across three scenarios and introduces an Effectiveness--Impartiality--Stability framework with a 12-mode failure taxonomy. Based on VIABLE, our systematic study of seven judges across different model scales shows that existing models are largely unreliable across all evaluation axes. The strongest judge, GPT-5.4, achieves only 52.6% single-failure diagnostic accuracy, yet exhibits the highest self-preference rate at 94.2%; while open-source judges are strongly biased and adversarially fragile. To address these issues, we propose VIA-Judge-Agent, a model-agnostic inference-time harness that augments judges with visual evidence extraction and a taxonomy-guided workflow. It enables positive improvements in diagnostic accuracy and downstream VIA responses more preferred by BLV users. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/YiyiyiZhao/VIABLE

Yi Zhao, Siqi Wang, Zhe Hu +2

Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

VLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Bias Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

May 10, 2026cs.CL

DeltaRubric: Generative Multimodal Reward Modeling via Joint Planning and Verification

Aligning Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) requires reliable reward models, yet existing single-step evaluators can suffer from lazy judging, exploiting language priors over fine-grained visual verification. While rubric-based evaluation mitigates these biases in text-only settings, extending it to multimodal tasks is bottlenecked by the complexity of visual reasoning. The critical differences between responses often depend on instance-specific visual details. Robust evaluation requires dynamically synthesizing rubrics that isolate spatial and factual discrepancies. To address this, we introduce

\textbf{DeltaRubric}

, an approach that reformulates multimodal preference evaluation as a plan-and-execute process within a single MLLM. DeltaRubric operates in two steps: acting first as a

\textit{Disagreement Planner}

, the model generates a neutral, instance-specific verification checklist. Transitioning into a

\textit{Checklist Verifier}

, it executes these self-generated checks against the image and question to produce the final grounded judgment. We formulate DeltaRubric as a multi-role reinforcement learning problem, jointly optimizing planning and verification capabilities. Validated on Qwen3-VL 4B and 8B Instruct models, DeltaRubric achieves solid empirical gains. For instance, On VL-RewardBench, it improves base model overall accuracy by

\textbf{+22.6}

(4B) and

\textbf{+18.8}

(8B) points, largely outperforming standard no-rubric baselines. The results demonstrate that decomposing evaluation into structured, verifiable steps leads to more reliable and generalizable multimodal reward modeling.

Rui Liu, Dian Yu, Zhenwen Liang +6

1Tencent Hunyuan · University of Maryland, College Park · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Multimodal Large Language Models Multimodal Reward Modeling Rubric-Based Evaluation Multimodal Foundation Models Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Multimodal Model Evaluation+2

May 5, 2026cs.CV

WorldJen: An End-to-End Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Generative Video Models

Evaluating generative video models remains an open problem. Reference-based metrics such as Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM) and Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) reward pixel fidelity over semantic correctness, while Frechet Video Distance (FVD) favors distributional textures over physical plausibility. Binary Visual Question Answering (VQA) based benchmarks like VBench~2.0 are prone to yes-bias and rely on low-resolution auditors that miss temporal failures. Moreover, their prompts target a single dimension at a time, multiplying the number of videos required while still not guaranteeing reliable results. WorldJen addresses these limitations directly. Binary VQA is replaced with Likert-scale questionnaires graded by a VLM that receives frames at native video resolution. Video generation costs are addressed by using adversarially curated prompts that are designed to exercise up to 16 quality dimensions simultaneously. The framework is built around two interlocking contributions. First, A blind human preference study is conducted, accumulating (2,696 pairwise annotations from 7 annotators with 100% pair coverage over 50 of the curated prompts

\times

6 state-of-the-art video models. A mean inter-annotator agreement of 66.9% is achieved and the study establishes a human ground-truth Bradley-Terry (BT) rating with a three-tier structure. Second, A VLM-as-a-judge evaluation engine using prompt-specific, dimension-specific Likert questionnaires (10 questions per dimension, 47,160 scored responses) judges the videos and reproduces the human-established three-tier BT rating structure independently. The VLM achieves a Spearman

\hatρ=1.000,~p=0.0014

that is interpreted as tier agreement with the human results. Six focused ablation studies validate the robustness of the VLM evaluation framework. Project page: https://moonmath.ai/worldjen/

Karthik Inbasekar, Guy Rom, Omer Shlomovits

Human Preference Evaluation Video Quality Assessment Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Video Generation Evaluation

Apr 28, 2026cs.LG

VLM Judges Can Rank but Cannot Score: Task-Dependent Uncertainty in Multimodal Evaluation

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for multimodal systems, yet their scores provide no indication of reliability. We study this problem through conformal prediction, a distribution-free framework that converts a judge's point score into a calibrated prediction interval using only score-token log-probabilities, with no retraining. We present the first systematic analysis of conformal prediction for VLM-as-a-Judge across 3 judges and 14 visual task categories. Our results show that evaluation uncertainty is strongly task-dependent: intervals cover ~40% of the score range for aesthetics and natural images but expand to ~70% for chart and mathematical reasoning, yielding a quantitative reliability map for multimodal evaluation. We further identify a failure mode not captured by standard evaluation metrics, ranking-scoring decoupling, where judges achieve high ranking correlation while producing wide, uninformative intervals, correctly ordering responses but failing to assign reliable absolute scores. Finally, we show that interval width is driven primarily by task difficulty and annotation quality, i.e., the same judge and method yield 4.5x narrower intervals on a clean, multi-annotator captioning benchmark. Code: https://github.com/divake/VLM-Judge-Uncertainty

Divake Kumar, Sina Tayebati, Devashri Naik +2

University of Illinois at Chicago · 2AI Labs at Capital One

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Models LLM-as-a-Judge Conformal Prediction Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Multimodal Model Evaluation

Apr 27, 2026cs.CV

SycoPhantasy: Quantifying Sycophancy and Hallucination in Small Open Weight VLMs for Vision-Language Scoring of Fantasy Characters

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as evaluators in tasks requiring nuanced image understanding, yet their reliability in scoring alignment between images and text descriptions remains underexplored. We investigate whether small, open-weight VLMs exhibit \emph{sycophantic} behavior when evaluating image-text alignment: assigning high scores without grounding their judgments in visual evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the \emph{Bluffing Coefficient} (\bc), a metric that measures the mismatch between a model's score and its evidence recall. We evaluate six open-weight VLMs ranging from 450M to 8B parameters on a benchmark of 173,810 AI-generated character portraits paired with detailed textual descriptions. Our analysis reveals a significant inverse correlation between model size and sycophancy rate (

r = -0.96

,

p = 0.002

), with smaller models exhibiting substantially higher rates of unjustified high scores. The smallest model tested (LFM2-VL, 450M) produced sycophantic evaluations in 22.3% of cases, compared to 6.0% for the largest (LLaVA-1.6, 7B). These findings have direct implications for the deployment of small, open-weight VLMs as automated evaluators within attribute-rich, synthetic image evaluation tasks, where the gap between assigned scores and cited visual evidence is both measurable and consequential.

Arya Shah, Deepali Mishra, Chaklam Silpasuwanchai

IIT Gandhinagar Gandhinagar, India · IIT Kanpur Kanpur, India · Asian Institute of Technology Bangkok, Thailand

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Models Vision-Language Alignment Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Apr 23, 2026cs.CV

Seeing Isn't Believing: Uncovering Blind Spots in Evaluator Vision-Language Models

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.

Mohammed Safi Ur Rahman Khan, Sanjay Suryanarayanan, Tushar Anand +1

♠Nilekani Centre at AI4Bharat ♢Indian Institute of Technology Madras · ♠Nilekani Centre at AI4Bharat · ♣BITS Pilani, Hyderabad

VLM Evaluation VLM Robustness Language Model Generation Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge T2I Generation Evaluation

Apr 21, 2026cs.CL

Lost in Translation: Do LVLM Judges Generalize Across Languages?

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Mohammed Saidul Islam, Mir Tafseer Nayeem +5

York University · University of Alberta · Nanyang Technological University +1

VLM Evaluation Multilingual VLM Evaluation Multimodal Reward Modeling Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Cross-Lingual Consistency in Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Apr 20, 2026cs.CL

MM-JudgeBias: A Benchmark for Evaluating Compositional Biases in MLLM-as-a-Judge

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.

Sua Lee, Sanghee Park, Jinbae Im

Seoul National University · NAVER Cloud AI · KAIST AI

LLM-as-a-Judge Multimodal Large Language Models Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge Multimodal Model Evaluation

Apr 20, 2026cs.AI

When Vision-Language Models Judge Without Seeing: Exposing Informativeness Bias

The reliability of VLM-as-a-Judge is critical for the automatic evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs). Despite recent progress, our analysis reveals that VLM-as-a-Judge often pays limited attention to the image when making decisions. Instead, they often blindly favor the more informative answer, even when they can recognize it conflicts with the image content. We call this problem informativeness bias, which significantly undermines judge reliability. To address it, we propose BIRCH (Balanced Informativeness and CoRrectness with a Truthful AnCHor), a judging paradigm that first corrects inconsistencies with the image content in candidate answers, and then compares the answers against this corrected version. This shifts the judge's focus from informativeness to image-grounded correctness. Experiments on multiple models and benchmarks show that BIRCH reduces informativeness bias by up to 17%, resulting in performance gains of up to 9.8%. Our work reveals an overlooked but fundamental flaw in current VLM-as-a-Judge systems and highlights the need for more principled designs.

Xiaohan Zou, Roshan Sridhar, Mohammadtaher Safarzadeh +1

The Pennsylvania State University · Oracle AI

VLM Evaluation Vision-Language Alignment Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge

Jun 2, 2025cs.CV

TIIF-Bench: How Does Your T2I Model Follow Your Instructions?

The rapid advancements of Text-to-Image (T2I) models have ushered in a new phase of AI-generated content, marked by their growing ability to interpret and follow user instructions. However, existing T2I model evaluation benchmarks fall short in limited prompt diversity and complexity, as well as coarse evaluation metrics, making it difficult to evaluate the fine-grained alignment performance between textual instructions and generated images. In this paper, we present TIIF-Bench Text-to-Image Instruction Following Benchmark), aiming to systematically assess T2I models' ability in interpreting and following intricate textual instructions. TIIF-Bench comprises 5,000 prompts organized along multiple dimensions and categorized into three levels of difficulty and complexity. To rigorously evaluate robustness to prompt length, each prompt is provided in both short and long versions with identical core semantics. We further propose a novel Global Normalized Edit Distance (GNED) metric for text rendering and provide aspect-ratio-diverse reference images for each prompt to assess style control. In addition, we collect 100 high-quality designer-level prompts covering diverse scenarios for comprehensive evaluation. To enable scalable and fine-grained evaluation, we explore the best paradigm for leveraging the world knowledge encoded in large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as automated binary evaluators. Through extensive ablations, we develop a fully reproducible evaluator that provides interpretable reasoning and reliable verification, enabling our benchmark to discern subtle variations in T2I model outputs. Through comprehensive benchmarking of mainstream T2I models on TIIF-Bench, we analyze the strengths and weaknesses of current T2I systems and reveal the limitations of existing evaluation benchmarks. Project Page: https://a113n-w3i.github.io/TIIF_Bench/.

Xinyu Wei, Jinrui Zhang, Zeqing Wang +4

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · OPPO Research Institute · Tsinghua University

Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge T2I Generation Evaluation

May 1, 2025cs.CV

Multimodal Language Models as Text-to-Image Model Evaluators

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

Jiahui Chen, Candace Ross, Reyhane Askari-Hemmat +5

1FAIR at Meta · University of Texas at Austin · ∗Work done at Meta +3

LLM-as-a-Judge Benchmark Design Automated Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge T2I Generation Evaluation