Evaluates vision-language models on their ability to generate accurate and linguistically coherent summaries of text-heavy multimodal presentations. It probes cross-modal alignment, long-context understanding, and the impact of different input modalities (raw video, slides, transcripts, interleaved pairs) and token budgets on summarization quality. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TIB-bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports $IbR_{overall}$.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill tib-bench-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Tib Bench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-tib-bench-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: tib-bench-eval
description: Evaluates vision-language models on their ability to generate accurate and linguistically coherent summaries of text-heavy multimodal presentations. It probes cross-modal alignment, long-context understanding, and the impact of different input modalities (raw video, slides, transcripts, interleaved pairs) and token budgets on summarization quality. Use when the user wants to benchmark on TIB-bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports $IbR_{overall}$.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2504.10049
bibtex_key: gigant2025summarizationmultimodal
confidence: high
---
# tib-bench-eval
> Summarization of Multimodal Presentations with Vision-Language Models: Study of the Effect of Modalities and Structure — Gigant et al. (2025) (arXiv:2504.10049, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates vision-language models on their ability to generate accurate and linguistically coherent summaries of text-heavy multimodal presentations. It probes cross-modal alignment, long-context understanding, and the impact of different input modalities (raw video, slides, transcripts, interleaved pairs) and token budgets on summarization quality.
## Datasets
- **TIB-bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `$R_1$` — range: percent
- ROUGE-1 computes unigram F1 overlap between generated and reference summaries. Reported as a percentage.
- `$R_2$` — range: percent
- ROUGE-2 computes bigram F1 overlap between generated and reference summaries. Reported as a percentage.
- `$G$` — range: percent
- GRUEN evaluates linguistic quality using a learned scoring model. Reported on a 0–100 scale.
- `$IbR_{transcript}$` — range: percent
- Importance-based relevance score measuring summary relevance weighted by transcript content importance. Exact computation defined in Section 3.4.
- `$IbR_{ocr}$` — range: percent
- Importance-based relevance score measuring summary relevance weighted by OCR-extracted text importance. Exact computation defined in Section 3.4.
- `$IbR_{overall}$` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Overall importance-based relevance score measuring summary relevance weighted by combined source content importance. Exact computation defined in Section 3.4.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multimodal presentation data provided as raw video, extracted slides, transcripts, or interleaved slide-transcript pairs. Inputs are tokenized with a specified visual token budget (e.g., 64–512 tokens) and truncated to 16k tokens if necessary to prevent out-of-memory errors.
**Output**: Natural language summary of the multimodal presentation.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, references):
# Metrics computed as defined in Section 3.4
r1 = rouge_score(predictions, references, rouge_types=['rouge1']) * 100
r2 = rouge_score(predictions, references, rouge_types=['rouge2']) * 100
g = gruen_score(predictions, references) * 100
ibr_trans = ibr_score(predictions, references, modality='transcript')
ibr_ocr = ibr_score(predictions, references, modality='ocr')
ibr_overall = ibr_score(predictions, references, modality='overall')
return {
'R1': r1, 'R2': r2, 'G': g,
'IbR_transcript': ibr_trans, 'IbR_ocr': ibr_ocr, 'IbR_overall': ibr_overall
}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models may fail to generate coherent summaries if inputs exceed their native training context length (e.g., Idefics-2 struggles beyond 2k tokens), making context length a critical confounding factor.
- 4-bit quantization and input truncation to 16k tokens are applied to prevent OOM errors but can significantly degrade performance, especially for models not explicitly trained on long contexts.
- IbR metrics require modality-specific importance weighting; standard ROUGE/GRUE scores alone do not capture cross-modal alignment or content relevance.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluate the summaries generated by these models with the collection of metrics described in Section [3.4]. The results are reported in Table [1]. ... The importance-based relevance ($IbR$) scores reveal that with these models, visual and textual understanding are improved jointly.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{gigant2025summarizationmultimodal,
title={Summarization of Multimodal Presentations with Vision-Language Models: Study of the Effect of Modalities and Structure},
author={Gigant et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2504.10049}
}
```
- arXiv: 2504.10049
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!