Qihui Zhang

Dongping Chen, Ruoxi Chen, Shilin Zhang et al.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained significant attention recently, showing remarkable potential in artificial general intelligence. However, assessing the utility of MLLMs presents considerable challenges, primarily due to the absence of multimodal benchmarks that align with human preferences. Drawing inspiration from the concept of LLM-as-a-Judge within LLMs, this paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities, encompassing three distinct tasks: Scoring Evaluation, Pair Comparison, and Batch Ranking. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking. Furthermore, a closer examination reveals persistent challenges in the judgment capacities of LLMs, including diverse biases, hallucinatory responses, and inconsistencies in judgment, even in advanced models such as GPT-4V. These findings emphasize the pressing need for enhancements and further research efforts to be undertaken before regarding MLLMs as fully reliable evaluators. In light of this, we advocate for additional efforts dedicated to supporting the continuous development within the domain of MLLM functioning as judges. The code and dataset are publicly available at our project homepage: \url{https://mllm-judge.github.io/}.

Linna Wang, Zhixuan You, Qihui Zhang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and causal learning each hold strong potential for clinical decision making (CDM). However, their synergy remains poorly understood, largely due to the lack of systematic benchmarks evaluating their integration in clinical risk prediction. In real-world healthcare, identifying features with causal influence on outcomes is crucial for actionable and trustworthy predictions. While recent work highlights LLMs' emerging causal reasoning abilities, there lacks comprehensive benchmarks to assess their causal learning and performance informed by causal features in clinical risk prediction. To address this, we introduce REACT-LLM, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether combining LLMs with causal features can enhance clinical prognostic performance and potentially outperform traditional machine learning (ML) methods. Unlike existing LLM-clinical benchmarks that often focus on a limited set of outcomes, REACT-LLM evaluates 7 clinical outcomes across 2 real-world datasets, comparing 15 prominent LLMs, 6 traditional ML models, and 3 causal discovery (CD) algorithms. Our findings indicate that while LLMs perform reasonably in clinical prognostics, they have not yet outperformed traditional ML models. Integrating causal features derived from CD algorithms into LLMs offers limited performance gains, primarily due to the strict assumptions of many CD methods, which are often violated in complex clinical data. While the direct integration yields limited improvement, our benchmark reveals a more promising synergy.

Chujie Gao, Siyuan Wu, Yue Huang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across various industries due to their exceptional generative capabilities. However, for safe and effective real-world deployments, ensuring honesty and helpfulness is critical. This paper addresses the question: Can we prioritize the helpfulness of LLMs while preserving their honesty? To begin with, we establish exhaustive principles aimed at guaranteeing the honesty of LLM. Additionally, we introduce a novel dataset, referred to as HoneSet, comprising 930 queries spanning six categories meticulously crafted to assess an LLM's capacity for maintaining honesty. Subsequently, we present two approaches to augmenting honesty and helpfulness in LLMs: a training-free enhancement and a fine-tuning-based improvement. The training-free approach, which is based on curiosity-driven prompting, empowers LLMs to articulate internal confusion and uncertainty regarding queries, thereby optimizing their responses. Conversely, the fine-tuning-based method employs a two-stage process inspired by curriculum learning: initially instructing LLMs to discern between honest and dishonest responses, then refining their training to enhance helpfulness. Experiments conducted on nine prominent LLMs demonstrate a significant improvement in alignment with honesty across all models through the implementation of our proposed enhancements. Particularly noteworthy is the 65.3% enhancement observed in Llama3-8b and the remarkable 124.7% improvement in Mistral-7b, as measured by the H$^{2}$ (honest and helpful) assessment. We believe that our work can pave the way for developing more trustworthy LLMs for real-world applications.