Kai-Wei Chang

Zhecan Wang, Junzhang Liu, Chia-Wei Tang et al.

Existing vision-language understanding benchmarks largely consist of images of objects in their usual contexts. As a consequence, recent multimodal large language models can perform well with only a shallow visual understanding by relying on background language biases. Thus, strong performance on these benchmarks does not necessarily correlate with strong visual understanding. In this paper, we release JourneyBench, a comprehensive human-annotated benchmark of generated images designed to assess the model's fine-grained multimodal reasoning abilities across five tasks: complementary multimodal chain of thought, multi-image VQA, imaginary image captioning, VQA with hallucination triggers, and fine-grained retrieval with sample-specific distractors. Unlike existing benchmarks, JourneyBench explicitly requires fine-grained multimodal reasoning in unusual imaginary scenarios where language bias and holistic image gist are insufficient. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on JourneyBench and analyze performance along a number of fine-grained dimensions. Results across all five tasks show that JourneyBench is exceptionally challenging for even the best models, indicating that models' visual reasoning abilities are not as strong as they first appear. We discuss the implications of our findings and propose avenues for further research.

Jen-tse Huang, Yuhang Yan, Linqi Liu et al. · pku, tencent-ai

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

Fei Wang, Xingyu Fu, James Y. Huang et al.

We introduce MuirBench, a comprehensive benchmark that focuses on robust multi-image understanding capabilities of multimodal LLMs. MuirBench consists of 12 diverse multi-image tasks (e.g., scene understanding, ordering) that involve 10 categories of multi-image relations (e.g., multiview, temporal relations). Comprising 11,264 images and 2,600 multiple-choice questions, MuirBench is created in a pairwise manner, where each standard instance is paired with an unanswerable variant that has minimal semantic differences, in order for a reliable assessment. Evaluated upon 20 recent multi-modal LLMs, our results reveal that even the best-performing models like GPT-4o and Gemini Pro find it challenging to solve MuirBench, achieving 68.0% and 49.3% in accuracy. Open-source multimodal LLMs trained on single images can hardly generalize to multi-image questions, hovering below 33.3% in accuracy. These results highlight the importance of MuirBench in encouraging the community to develop multimodal LLMs that can look beyond a single image, suggesting potential pathways for future improvements.

Jiaxi Li, Yiwei Wang, Kai Zhang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains. However, their abilities to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored. Most existing medical QA benchmarks assess complex reasoning or multi-hop inference, making it difficult to isolate LLMs' inherent medical knowledge from their reasoning capabilities. Given the high-stakes nature of medical applications, where incorrect information can have critical consequences, it is essential to evaluate the factuality of LLMs to retain medical knowledge. To address this challenge, we introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment Dataset (MKJ), a dataset derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), a comprehensive repository of standardized biomedical vocabularies and knowledge graphs. Through a binary classification framework, MKJ evaluates LLMs' grasp of fundamental medical facts by having them assess the validity of concise, one-hop statements, enabling direct measurement of their knowledge retention capabilities. Our experiments reveal that LLMs have difficulty accurately recalling medical facts, with performances varying substantially across semantic types and showing notable weakness in uncommon medical conditions. Furthermore, LLMs show poor calibration, often being overconfident in incorrect answers. To mitigate these issues, we explore retrieval-augmented generation, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving factual accuracy and reducing uncertainty in medical decision-making.