Do MLLMs Exhibit Human-like Perceptual Behaviors? HVSBench: A Benchmark for MLLM Alignment with Human Perceptual Behavior

Jiaying Lin, Shuquan Ye, Dan Xu, Wanli Ouyang, Rynson W. H. Lau
12/12/2024
cs.CV

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel at many vision tasks, it is unknown if they exhibit human-like perceptual behaviors. To evaluate this, we introduce HVSBench, the first large-scale benchmark with over 85,000 samples designed to test MLLM alignment with the human visual system (HVS). The benchmark covers 13 categories across 5 key fields: Prominence, Subitizing, Prioritizing, Free-Viewing, and Searching. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a significant perceptual gap: even state-of-the-art MLLMs achieve only moderate results. In contrast, human participants demonstrate strong performance, significantly outperforming all models. This underscores the high quality of HVSBench and the need for more human-aligned AI. We believe our benchmark will be a critical tool for developing the next generation of explainable MLLMs.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{lin2024mllms,
  title  = {Do MLLMs Exhibit Human-like Perceptual Behaviors? HVSBench: A Benchmark for MLLM Alignment with Human Perceptual Behavior},
  author = {Jiaying Lin and Shuquan Ye and Dan Xu and Wanli Ouyang and Rynson W. H. Lau},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2412.09603},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09603v3}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2412.09603.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2412.09603)

Discussion