Yifei Yuan

Weijia Zhang, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Jiahuan Pei et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate content with unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations." To address this, retrieval-augmented LLMs are employed to include citations in their content, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies tackle this challenge by leveraging faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically. However, they limit this citation support estimation to a binary classification scenario, neglecting fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results indicate no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, highlighting the complexity of accurately evaluating fine-grained support levels. Particularly, we find that the best-performing metrics struggle to distinguish partial support from full or no support. Based on these findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.

Jiaang Li, Yifei Yuan, Wenyan Li et al.

As vision-language models (VLMs) become increasingly integrated into daily life, the need for accurate visual culture understanding is becoming critical. Yet, these models frequently fall short in interpreting cultural nuances effectively. Prior work has demonstrated the effectiveness of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in enhancing cultural understanding in text-only settings, while its application in multimodal scenarios remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce RAVENEA (Retrieval-Augmented Visual culturE uNdErstAnding), a new benchmark designed to advance visual culture understanding through retrieval, focusing on two tasks: culture-focused visual question answering (cVQA) and culture-informed image captioning (cIC). RAVENEA extends existing datasets by integrating over 10,000 Wikipedia documents curated and ranked by human annotators. With RAVENEA, we train and evaluate seven multimodal retrievers for each image query, and measure the downstream impact of retrieval-augmented inputs across fourteen state-of-the-art VLMs. Our results show that lightweight VLMs, when augmented with culture-aware retrieval, outperform their non-augmented counterparts (by at least 3.2% absolute on cVQA and 6.2% absolute on cIC). This highlights the value of retrieval-augmented methods and culturally inclusive benchmarks for multimodal understanding.

Yifei Yuan, Anders Søgaard

Li et al. (2023) used the Othello board game as a test case for the ability of GPT-2 to induce world models, and were followed up by Nanda et al. (2023b). We briefly discuss the original experiments, expanding them to include more language models with more comprehensive probing. Specifically, we analyze sequences of Othello board states and train the model to predict the next move based on previous moves. We evaluate seven language models (GPT-2, T5, Bart, Flan-T5, Mistral, LLaMA-2, and Qwen2.5) on the Othello task and conclude that these models not only learn to play Othello, but also induce the Othello board layout. We find that all models achieve up to 99% accuracy in unsupervised grounding and exhibit high similarity in the board features they learned. This provides considerably stronger evidence for the Othello World Model Hypothesis than previous works.

Kimia Ramezan, Alireza Amiri Bavandpour, Yifei Yuan et al.

Conversational query clarification enables users to refine their search queries through interactive dialogue, improving search effectiveness. Traditional approaches rely on text-based clarifying questions, which often fail to capture complex user preferences, particularly those involving visual attributes. While recent work has explored single-turn multi-modal clarification with images alongside text, such methods do not fully support the progressive nature of user intent refinement over multiple turns. Motivated by this, we introduce the Multi-turn Multi-modal Clarifying Questions (MMCQ) task, which combines text and visual modalities to refine user queries in a multi-turn conversation. To facilitate this task, we create a large-scale dataset named ClariMM comprising over 13k multi-turn interactions and 33k question-answer pairs containing multi-modal clarifying questions. We propose Mario, a retrieval framework that employs a two-phase ranking strategy: initial retrieval with BM25, followed by a multi-modal generative re-ranking model that integrates textual and visual information from conversational history. Our experiments show that multi-turn multi-modal clarification outperforms uni-modal and single-turn approaches, improving MRR by 12.88%. The gains are most significant in longer interactions, demonstrating the value of progressive refinement for complex queries.

Weijia Zhang, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Yifei Yuan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations." To mitigate this, retrieval-augmented LLMs incorporate citations, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies use faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically but are limited to binary classification, overlooking fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results show no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, revealing the complexity of assessing fine-grained support. Based on the findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.