Junyang Liu

Zimeng Huang, Jinxin Ke, Xiaoxuan Fan et al.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have exhibited remarkable progress. However, deficiencies remain compared to human intelligence, such as hallucination and shallow pattern matching. In this work, we aim to evaluate a fundamental yet underexplored intelligence: association, a cornerstone of human cognition for creative thinking and knowledge integration. Current benchmarks, often limited to closed-ended tasks, fail to capture the complexity of open-ended association reasoning vital for real-world applications. To address this, we present MM-OPERA, a systematic benchmark with 11,497 instances across two open-ended tasks: Remote-Item Association (RIA) and In-Context Association (ICA), aligning association intelligence evaluation with human psychometric principles. It challenges LVLMs to resemble the spirit of divergent thinking and convergent associative reasoning through free-form responses and explicit reasoning paths. We deploy tailored LLM-as-a-Judge strategies to evaluate open-ended outputs, applying process-reward-informed judgment to dissect reasoning with precision. Extensive empirical studies on state-of-the-art LVLMs, including sensitivity analysis of task instances, validity analysis of LLM-as-a-Judge strategies, and diversity analysis across abilities, domains, languages, cultures, etc., provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the limitations of current LVLMs in associative reasoning, paving the way for more human-like and general-purpose AI. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/MM-OPERA-Bench/MM-OPERA.

Rui Zheng, Hongyi Guo, Zhihan Liu et al.

The standard Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) framework primarily focuses on optimizing the performance of large language models using pre-collected prompts. However, collecting prompts that provide comprehensive coverage is both tedious and challenging, and often fails to include scenarios that LLMs need to improve on the most. In this paper, we investigate alignment through the lens of two-agent games, involving iterative interactions between an adversarial and a defensive agent. The adversarial agent's task at each step is to generate prompts that expose the weakness of the defensive agent. In return, the defensive agent seeks to improve its responses to these newly identified prompts it struggled with, based on feedback from the reward model. We theoretically demonstrate that this iterative reinforcement learning optimization converges to a Nash Equilibrium for the game induced by the agents. Experimental results in safety scenarios demonstrate that learning in such a competitive environment not only fully trains agents but also leads to policies with enhanced generalization capabilities for both adversarial and defensive agents.