When people query Vision-Language Models (VLMs) but cannot see the accompanying visual context (e.g. for blind and low-vision users), augmenting VLM predictions with natural language explanations can signal which model predictions are reliable. However, prior work has found that explanations can easily convince users that inaccurate VLM predictions are correct. To remedy undesirable overreliance on VLM predictions, we propose evaluating two complementary qualities of VLM-generated explanations via two quality scoring functions. We propose Visual Fidelity, which captures how faithful an explanation is to the visual context, and Contrastiveness, which captures how well the explanation identifies visual details that distinguish the model’s prediction from plausible alternatives. On the A-OKVQA, VizWiz, and MMMU-Pro tasks, these quality scoring functions are better calibrated with model correctness than existing explanation qualities. We conduct a user study in which participants have to decide whether a VLM prediction is accurate without viewing its visual context. We observe that showing our quality scores alongside VLM explanations improves participants’ accuracy at predicting VLM correctness by 11.1%, including a 15.4% reduction in the rate of falsely believing incorrect predictions. These findings highlight the utility of explanation quality scores in fostering appropriate reliance on VLM predictions.

Language models today are widely used in education, yet their ability to tailor responses for learners with varied informational needs and knowledge backgrounds remains under-explored. To this end, we introduce ELI-Why, a benchmark of 13.4K “Why” questions to evaluate the pedagogical capabilities of language models. We then conduct two extensive human studies to assess the utility of language model-generated explanatory answers (explanations) on our benchmark, tailored to three distinct educational grades: elementary, high-school and graduate school. In our first study, human raters assume the role of an “educator” to assess model explanations’ fit to different educational grades. We find that GPT-4-generated explanations match their intended educational background only 50% of the time, compared to 79% for lay human-curated explanations. In our second study, human raters assume the role of a learner to assess if an explanation fits their own informational needs. Across all educational backgrounds, users deemed GPT-4-generated explanations 20% less suited on average to their informational needs, when compared to explanations curated by lay people. Additionally, automated evaluation metrics reveal that explanations generated across different language model families for different informational needs remain indistinguishable in their grade-level, limiting their pedagogical effectiveness.