Papers › GenCeption: Evaluate Multimodal LLMs with Unlabeled Unimodal Data

GenCeption: Evaluate Multimodal LLMs with Unlabeled Unimodal Data

22 Feb 2024arXiv:2402.14973archive 2025-07-28

Lele Cao, Valentin Buchner, Zineb Senane, Fangkai Yang

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are typically assessed using expensive annotated multimodal benchmarks, which often lag behind the rapidly evolving demands of MLLM evaluation. This paper outlines and validates GenCeption, a novel, annotation-free evaluation method that requires only unimodal data to measure inter-modality semantic coherence and inversely assesses MLLMs' tendency to hallucinate. This approach eliminates the need for costly data annotation, minimizes the risk of training data contamination, results in slower benchmark saturation, and avoids the illusion of emerging abilities. Inspired by the DrawCeption game, GenCeption begins with a non-textual sample and proceeds through iterative description and generation steps. The semantic drift across iterations is quantified using the GC@T metric. Based on the GenCeption method, we establish the MMECeption benchmark for evaluating Vision LLMs (VLLMs), and compare performance of several popular VLLMs and human annotators. Our empirical results validate GenCeption's effectiveness, demonstrating strong correlations with established VLLM benchmarks. VLLMs still significantly lack behind human performance and struggle especially with text-intensive tasks.

PaperPDFCode

Code

llcresearch/genception officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Benchmarking

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections