Ruchira Dhar
2025
Evaluating Multimodal Language Models as Visual Assistants for Visually Impaired Users
Antonia Karamolegkou
|
Malvina Nikandrou
|
Georgios Pantazopoulos
|
Danae Sanchez Villegas
|
Phillip Rust
|
Ruchira Dhar
|
Daniel Hershcovich
|
Anders Søgaard
Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
This paper explores the effectiveness of Multimodal Large Language models (MLLMs) as assistive technologies for visually impaired individuals. We conduct a user survey to identify adoption patterns and key challenges users face with such technologies. Despite a high adoption rate of these models, our findings highlight concerns related to contextual understanding, cultural sensitivity, and complex scene understanding, particularly for individuals who may rely solely on them for visual interpretation. Informed by these results, we collate five user-centred tasks with image and video inputs, including a novel task on Optical Braille Recognition. Our systematic evaluation of twelve MLLMs reveals that further advancements are necessary to overcome limitations related to cultural context, multilingual support, Braille reading comprehension, assistive object recognition, and hallucinations. This work provides critical insights into the future direction of multimodal AI for accessibility, underscoring the need for more inclusive, robust, and trustworthy visual assistance technologies.
2024
Defining Knowledge: Bridging Epistemology and Large Language Models
Constanza Fierro
|
Ruchira Dhar
|
Filippos Stamatiou
|
Nicolas Garneau
|
Anders Søgaard
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Knowledge claims are abundant in the literature on large language models (LLMs); but can we say that GPT-4 truly “knows” the Earth is round? To address this question, we review standard definitions of knowledge in epistemology and we formalize interpretations applicable to LLMs. In doing so, we identify inconsistencies and gaps in how current NLP research conceptualizes knowledge with respect to epistemological frameworks. Additionally, we conduct a survey of 100 professional philosophers and computer scientists to compare their preferences in knowledge definitions and their views on whether LLMs can really be said to know. Finally, we suggest evaluation protocols for testing knowledge in accordance to the most relevant definitions.