评测GPT-4o等多模态模型在视觉任务上的表现,发现其泛化能力强但几何理解弱。
How Well Does GPT-4o Understand Vision? Evaluating Multimodal Foundation Models on Standard Computer Vision Tasks
- 用提示链将视觉任务转为文本可输出格式,实现无权重模型的统一评测
- GPT-4o在6项任务中4项第一,但整体仍落后于专用模型
- 模型越强对提示变化越不敏感,图像生成类模型易出现幻觉
多模态基础模型(MFMs)如GPT-4o近期取得显著进展,但其在问答之外的视觉理解能力尚不清晰。本文在标准计算机视觉任务(语义分割、目标检测、图像分类、深度与表面法向预测)上评测主流MFMs(GPT-4o、o4-mini、Gemini 1.5 Pro、Gemini 2.0 Flash、Claude 3.5 Sonnet、Qwen2-VL、Llama 3.2),使用COCO、ImageNet等基准数据集。主要挑战在于:多数模型仅训练输出文本,无法原生表达分割或三维几何;且多数模型为专有,仅可通过API访问。为此,我们通过提示链技术将视觉任务转化为文本提示兼容格式,构建标准化评测框架。结果表明:1)MFMs在任何任务上均未接近顶尖专用模型;2)作为通用模型表现尚可,令人意外;3)语义任务表现优于几何任务;4)非推理模型中GPT-4o在6项任务中4项领先;5)推理模型(如o3)在几何任务上表现提升;6)提示链影响性能,但更强模型对提示变化更鲁棒;7)具备原生图像生成能力的GPT-4o存在幻觉对象或输入输出错位等失败模式。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Multimodal foundation models (MFMs), such as GPT-4o, have recently made remarkable progress. However, their detailed visual understanding beyond question answering remains unclear. In this paper, we benchmark popular MFMs (GPT-4o, o4-mini, Gemini 1.5 Pro and Gemini 2.0 Flash, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Qwen2-VL, Llama 3.2) on standard computer vision tasks (semantic segmentation, object detection, image classification, depth and surface normal prediction) using established datasets (e.g., COCO, ImageNet, etc). The main challenges in performing this analysis are: 1) most models are trained to output text and cannot natively express versatile domains, such as segments or 3D geometry, and 2) many leading models are proprietary and accessible only at an API level, i.e., there is no weight access to adapt them. We address these by translating vision tasks into text-promptable, API-compatible formats via prompt chaining, creating a standardized benchmarking framework. We observe that: 1) The MFMs are not close to the state-of-the-art specialist models at any task. 2) They are respectable generalists; this is remarkable, as they are presumably trained on image-text-based tasks. 3) They perform semantic tasks notably better than geometric ones. 4) GPT-4o performs the best among non-reasoning models, securing the top position in 4 out of 6 tasks. 5) Reasoning models, e.g., o3, show improvements in geometric tasks. 6) While prompt chaining techniques affect performance, better models are less sensitive to prompt variations. 7) An analysis of models with native image generation, such as the latest GPT-4o, shows they exhibit failure modes, such as hallucinated objects or misalignment between input and output.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。