Evaluates the fine-grained judgment capability of vision-language models by scoring generated text outputs against instance-specific rubrics and reference answers. It measures alignment with human preferences and state-of-the-art VLM judges across instruction following, VQA, and captioning tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LLaVA-Bench, VisIT-Bench, Perception-Bench, OKVQA, VQAv2, TextVQA, COCO-Captions, NoCaps, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Pearson correlation.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill prometheus-vision-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Prometheus Vision Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-prometheus-vision-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: prometheus-vision-eval
description: Evaluates the fine-grained judgment capability of vision-language models by scoring generated text outputs against instance-specific rubrics and reference answers. It measures alignment with human preferences and state-of-the-art VLM judges across instruction following, VQA, and captioning tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LLaVA-Bench, VisIT-Bench, Perception-Bench, OKVQA, VQAv2, TextVQA, COCO-Captions, NoCaps, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Pearson correlation.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2401.06591
bibtex_key: lee2024prometheusvision
confidence: high
---
# prometheus-vision-eval
> Prometheus-Vision: Vision-Language Model as a Judge for Fine-Grained Evaluation — Lee et al. (2024) (arXiv:2401.06591, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the fine-grained judgment capability of vision-language models by scoring generated text outputs against instance-specific rubrics and reference answers. It measures alignment with human preferences and state-of-the-art VLM judges across instruction following, VQA, and captioning tasks.
## Datasets
- **LLaVA-Bench** — total 60; splits: test (60)
- **VisIT-Bench** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **Perception-Bench** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **OKVQA** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **VQAv2** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **TextVQA** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **COCO-Captions** — total 500; splits: test (500)
- **NoCaps** — total 500; splits: test (500)
## Metrics
- `Pearson correlation` **(primary)** — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the linear correlation between the evaluator model's scores and the reference scores (human or GPT-4V). Calculated as the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations.
- `Kendall-Tau correlation` — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the ordinal association between two ranked lists of scores. Counts concordant and discordant pairs to assess ranking agreement.
- `Spearman correlation` — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the monotonic relationship between two ranked score lists. Computed as the Pearson correlation between the rank variables.
- `Pairwise Preference Win-rate` — range: [0, 1]
- The percentage of instances where the evaluator model's generated feedback is preferred over a baseline model's feedback in direct human pairwise comparisons.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Image, text instruction or question, reference answer (for VQA/captioning tasks), and a fine-grained, instance-specific score rubric.
**Output**: A numerical score decision and accompanying language feedback explaining the score.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(model_scores, ref_scores, pairwise_feedbacks):
pearson = pearsonr(model_scores, ref_scores)
kendall = kendalltau(model_scores, ref_scores)
spearman = spearmanr(model_scores, ref_scores)
wins = sum(1 for m, b in pairwise_feedbacks if human_prefers(m, b))
win_rate = wins / len(pairwise_feedbacks)
return pearson, kendall, spearman, win_rate
```
## Common pitfalls
- Language model baselines cannot process images directly; they require a separate captioning step via LLaVA-1.5, which may lose visual details critical for scoring.
- Rubrics are instance-specific and generated differently for human vs. GPT-4V evaluation setups, making cross-setup score comparisons invalid without normalization.
- VQA and captioning benchmarks use short ground-truth answers, while instruction-following benchmarks use long-form outputs, requiring distinct rubric generation and scoring strategies.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Then, we measure the correlation of the scoring decision by employing Pearson, Kendall-Tau, and Spearman as our metrics. Next, we ask human annotators to compare 2 language feedbacks that are sampled from either GPT-4, GPT-4V, or Prometheus-Vision (13B) and choose which one is better. Then, we measure the Pairwise Preference Win-rate between the 3 candidates.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{lee2024prometheusvision,
title={Prometheus-Vision: Vision-Language Model as a Judge for Fine-Grained Evaluation},
author={Lee et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2401.06591}
}
```
- arXiv: 2401.06591
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!