Jinsheng Huang

AI
h-index17
4papers
55citations
Novelty43%
AI Score47

4 Papers

22.2CLMay 30, 2025Code
FinMME: Benchmark Dataset for Financial Multi-Modal Reasoning Evaluation

Junyu Luo, Zhizhuo Kou, Liming Yang et al. · pku

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have experienced rapid development in recent years. However, in the financial domain, there is a notable lack of effective and specialized multimodal evaluation datasets. To advance the development of MLLMs in the finance domain, we introduce FinMME, encompassing more than 11,000 high-quality financial research samples across 18 financial domains and 6 asset classes, featuring 10 major chart types and 21 subtypes. We ensure data quality through 20 annotators and carefully designed validation mechanisms. Additionally, we develop FinScore, an evaluation system incorporating hallucination penalties and multi-dimensional capability assessment to provide an unbiased evaluation. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o exhibit unsatisfactory performance on FinMME, highlighting its challenging nature. The benchmark exhibits high robustness with prediction variations under different prompts remaining below 1%, demonstrating superior reliability compared to existing datasets. Our dataset and evaluation protocol are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/luojunyu/FinMME and https://github.com/luo-junyu/FinMME.

11.1AIAug 10, 2025Code
AlphaEval: A Comprehensive and Efficient Evaluation Framework for Formula Alpha Mining

Hongjun Ding, Binqi Chen, Jinsheng Huang et al. · pku

Formula alpha mining, which generates predictive signals from financial data, is critical for quantitative investment. Although various algorithmic approaches-such as genetic programming, reinforcement learning, and large language models-have significantly expanded the capacity for alpha discovery, systematic evaluation remains a key challenge. Existing evaluation metrics predominantly include backtesting and correlation-based measures. Backtesting is computationally intensive, inherently sequential, and sensitive to specific strategy parameters. Correlation-based metrics, though efficient, assess only predictive ability and overlook other crucial properties such as temporal stability, robustness, diversity, and interpretability. Additionally, the closed-source nature of most existing alpha mining models hinders reproducibility and slows progress in this field. To address these issues, we propose AlphaEval, a unified, parallelizable, and backtest-free evaluation framework for automated alpha mining models. AlphaEval assesses the overall quality of generated alphas along five complementary dimensions: predictive power, stability, robustness to market perturbations, financial logic, and diversity. Extensive experiments across representative alpha mining algorithms demonstrate that AlphaEval achieves evaluation consistency comparable to comprehensive backtesting, while providing more comprehensive insights and higher efficiency. Furthermore, AlphaEval effectively identifies superior alphas compared to traditional single-metric screening approaches. All implementations and evaluation tools are open-sourced to promote reproducibility and community engagement.

12.4AIMar 4, 2025
Attention Bootstrapping for Multi-Modal Test-Time Adaptation

Yusheng Zhao, Junyu Luo, Xiao Luo et al. · pku

Test-time adaptation aims to adapt a well-trained model to potential distribution shifts at test time using only unlabeled test data, without access to the original training data. While previous efforts mainly focus on a single modality, test-time distribution shift in the multi-modal setting is more complex and calls for new solutions. This paper tackles the problem of multi-modal test-time adaptation by proposing a novel method named Attention Bootstrapping with Principal Entropy Minimization (ABPEM). We observe that test-time distribution shift causes misalignment across modalities, leading to a large gap between intra-modality discrepancies (measured by self-attention) and inter-modality discrepancies (measured by cross-attention). We name this the attention gap. This attention gap widens with more severe distribution shifts, hindering effective modality fusion. To mitigate this attention gap and encourage better modality fusion, we propose attention bootstrapping that promotes cross-attention with the guidance of self-attention. Moreover, to reduce the gradient noise in the commonly-used entropy minimization, we adopt principal entropy minimization, a refinement of entropy minimization that reduces gradient noise by focusing on the principal parts of entropy, excluding less reliable gradient information. Extensive experiments on the benchmarks validate the effectiveness of the proposed ABPEM in comparison with competing baselines.

19.4CVJun 29, 2024Code
MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation

Jinsheng Huang, Liang Chen, Taian Guo et al.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises $2,138$ question triplets, totaling $6,414$ distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by $31.73\%$, compared to an average gap of $8.03\%$ in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by $23.09\%$, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just $14.64\%$). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.