Zifu Wang

Pedro R. A. S. Bassi, Wenxuan Li, Yucheng Tang et al.

How can we test AI performance? This question seems trivial, but it isn't. Standard benchmarks often have problems such as in-distribution and small-size test sets, oversimplified metrics, unfair comparisons, and short-term outcome pressure. As a consequence, good performance on standard benchmarks does not guarantee success in real-world scenarios. To address these problems, we present Touchstone, a large-scale collaborative segmentation benchmark of 9 types of abdominal organs. This benchmark is based on 5,195 training CT scans from 76 hospitals around the world and 5,903 testing CT scans from 11 additional hospitals. This diverse test set enhances the statistical significance of benchmark results and rigorously evaluates AI algorithms across various out-of-distribution scenarios. We invited 14 inventors of 19 AI algorithms to train their algorithms, while our team, as a third party, independently evaluated these algorithms on three test sets. In addition, we also evaluated pre-existing AI frameworks--which, differing from algorithms, are more flexible and can support different algorithms--including MONAI from NVIDIA, nnU-Net from DKFZ, and numerous other open-source frameworks. We are committed to expanding this benchmark to encourage more innovation of AI algorithms for the medical domain.

Zifu Wang, Junyi Zhu, Bo Tang et al.

The application of rule-based reinforcement learning (RL) to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) introduces unique challenges and potential deviations from findings in text-only domains, particularly for perception-heavy tasks. This paper provides a comprehensive study of rule-based visual RL, using jigsaw puzzles as a structured experimental framework. Jigsaw puzzles offer inherent ground truth, adjustable difficulty, and demand complex decision-making, making them ideal for this study. Our research reveals several key findings: \textit{Firstly,} we find that MLLMs, initially performing near to random guessing on the simplest jigsaw puzzles, achieve near-perfect accuracy and generalize to complex, unseen configurations through fine-tuning. \textit{Secondly,} training on jigsaw puzzles can induce generalization to other visual tasks, with effectiveness tied to specific task configurations. \textit{Thirdly,} MLLMs can learn and generalize with or without explicit reasoning, though open-source models often favor direct answering. Consequently, even when trained for step-by-step reasoning, they can ignore the thinking process in deriving the final answer. \textit{Fourthly,} we observe that complex reasoning patterns appear to be pre-existing rather than emergent, with their frequency increasing alongside training and task difficulty. \textit{Finally,} our results demonstrate that RL exhibits more effective generalization than Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and an initial SFT cold start phase can hinder subsequent RL optimization. Although these observations are based on jigsaw puzzles and may vary across other visual tasks, this research contributes a valuable piece of jigsaw to the larger puzzle of collective understanding rule-based visual RL and its potential in multimodal learning. The code is available at: https://github.com/zifuwanggg/Jigsaw-R1

Xuefei Ning, Zifu Wang, Shiyao Li et al.

Teaching to improve student models (e.g., knowledge distillation) is an extensively studied methodology in LLMs. However, for humans, teaching improves not only students but also teachers, by fostering more rigorous and clear reasoning as well as knowledge building. We ask: Can LLMs also learn by teaching (LbT) for better reasoning? If the answer is yes, we can potentially unlock the possibility of continuously advancing the models without solely relying on human-produced data or stronger models. In this paper, we provide a preliminary exploration on this question. We show that LbT ideas can be incorporated into existing LLM training/prompting pipelines and bring improvements. Specifically, we design three methods, each mimicking one of the three levels of LbT: observing students' feedback, learning from the feedback, and learning iteratively, with the goals of improving answer accuracy without training or improving models' inherent capability with fine-tuning. We reveal some findings: (1) Teaching materials that make it easier for students to learn have clearer and more accurate logic when using in-context learning as the student's "learning" method; (2) Weak-to-strong generalization: LbT might help improve strong models by teaching weak models; (3) Diversity in students might help: teaching multiple students could be better than teaching one student or the teacher itself. We hope that our exploration can inspire future research on LbT and more broadly adopting the advanced techniques in education to improve LLMs. The code and website are at https://github.com/imagination-research/lbt and https://sites.google.com/view/llm-learning-by-teaching.