# TUBench: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Trustworthiness with Unanswerable Questions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.04107 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04107/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 8 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1405.0312/) (2014)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12966/) (2023)
- [VisualBERT: A Simple and Performant Baseline for Vision and Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.03557/) (2019)
- [mPLUG-Owl: Modularization Empowers Large Language Models with Multimodality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14178/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [AutoTrust: Benchmarking Trustworthiness in Large Vision Language Models for Autonomous Driving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15206/) (2024)
- [CLIP-UP: CLIP-Based Unanswerable Problem Detection for Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.01371/) (2025)
- [TRAPSBench: Vision-Language Models Encode but Fail to Express Epistemic Restraint](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13167/) (2026)
- [Look Again Before You Abstain:Budgeted Conformal Evidence Acquisition for Reliable Vision-Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16667/) (2026)
- [Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30557/) (2026)
- [Hidden in Plain Sight: Reasoning in Underspecified and Misspecified Scenarios for Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00258/) (2025)
- [VB: Visibility Benchmark for Visibility and Perspective Reasoning in Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06680/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress on visual perception and linguistic interpretation. Despite their impressive capabilities across various tasks, LVLMs still suffer from the issue of hallucination, which involves generating content that is incorrect or unfaithful to the visual or textual inputs. Traditional benchmarks, such as MME and POPE, evaluate hallucination in LVLMs within the scope of Visual Question Answering (VQA) using answerable questions. However, some questions are unanswerable due to insufficient information in the images, and the performance of LVLMs on such unanswerable questions remains underexplored. To bridge this research gap, we propose TUBench, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the reliability of LVLMs using unanswerable questions. TUBench comprises an extensive collection of high-quality, unanswerable questions that are meticulously crafted using ten distinct strategies. To thoroughly evaluate LVLMs, the unanswerable questions in TUBench are based on images from four diverse domains as visual contexts: screenshots of code snippets, natural images, geometry diagrams, and screenshots of statistical tables. These unanswerable questions are tailored to test LVLMs' trustworthiness in code reasoning, commonsense reasoning, geometric reasoning, and mathematical reasoning related to tables, respectively. We conducted a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of 28 leading foundational models on TUBench, with Gemini-1.5-Pro, the top-performing model, achieving an average accuracy of 69.2%, and GPT-4o, the third-ranked model, reaching 66.7% average accuracy, in determining whether questions are answerable. TUBench is available at https://github.com/NLPCode/TUBench.