Measuring What Matters Beyond Text: Evaluating Multimodal Summaries by Quality, Alignment, and Diversity
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have facilitated Multimodal Summarization with Multimodal Output (MSMO), wherein systems generate concise textual summaries accompanied by salient visuals from multimodal sources. However, current MSMO evaluation remains fragmented: text quality, image-text alignment, and visual diversity are typically assessed in isolation using unimodal metrics, making it difficult to capture whether the modalities jointly support a faithful and useful summary. To address this gap, we introduce MM-Eval, a unified evaluation framework that integrates assessments of textual quality, cross-modal alignment, and visual diversity. MM-Eval comprises three components: (1) text quality, measured using OpenFActScore for factual consistency and G-Eval for coherence, fluency, and relevance; (2) image-text relevance, evaluated via an MLLM-as-a-judge approach; and (3) image-set diversity, quantified using Truncated CLIP Entropy. We calibrate MM-Eval through a learned aggregation model trained on the mLLM-EVAL news benchmark, aligning component contributions with human preferences. Our analysis reveals a text-dominant hierarchy in this setting, where factual consistency acts as a critical determinant of perceived overall quality, while visual relevance and diversity provide complementary signals. MM-Eval improves over heuristic aggregation baselines and provides an interpretable, reference-weak framework for comparative evaluation of multimodal summaries.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks
Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety'…
Measuring What Matters!! Assessing Therapeutic Principles in Mental-Health Conversation
The increasing use of large language models in mental health applications calls for principled evaluation frameworks that assess alignment with psychotherapeutic best practices beyond surface-level fluency. While recent …
Two-Level Meta-Rubrics for Evaluating Open-Ended Generation: GAMUT, a Benchmark for Factual Completeness
Evaluating the factuality of long-form generations has focused predominantly on precision, measuring whether the claims a model makes are correct. The dominant decompose-search-verify pipeline catches incorrect claims we…
Measuring What Matters: A Unified Evaluation Framework for GNN Explainability
Graph eXplainable AI (G-XAI) is increasingly important for making Graph Neural Networks interpretable and accountable. While a growing number of explainers are available, choosing the right method and assessing the trust…
A Fuzzy Approach to Project Success: Measuring What Matters
This paper introduces a novel approach to project success evaluation by integrating fuzzy logic into an existing construct. Traditional Likert-scale measures often overlook the context-dependent and multifaceted nature o…