Moxin Li

Moxin Li, Yuantao Zhang, Wenjie Wang et al.

Multi-Objective Alignment (MOA) aims to align LLMs' responses with multiple human preference objectives, with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) emerging as a prominent approach. However, we find that DPO-based MOA approaches suffer from widespread preference conflicts in the data, where different objectives favor different responses. This results in conflicting optimization directions, hindering the optimization on the Pareto Front. To address this, we propose to construct Pareto-optimal responses to resolve preference conflicts. To efficiently obtain and utilize such responses, we propose a self-improving DPO framework that enables LLMs to self-generate and select Pareto-optimal responses for self-supervised preference alignment. Extensive experiments on two datasets demonstrate the superior Pareto Front achieved by our framework compared to various baselines. Code is available at https://github.com/zyttt-coder/SIPO.

Zhuo Liu, Moxin Li, Xun Deng et al.

LLM-as-a-Judge employs large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, to evaluate the quality of LLM-generated responses, gaining popularity for its cost-effectiveness and strong alignment with human evaluations. However, training proxy judge models using evaluation data generated by powerful teacher models introduces a critical yet previously overlooked issue: teacher preference bias, where the proxy judge model learns a biased preference for responses from the teacher model. To tackle this problem, we propose a novel setting that incorporates an additional assistant model, which is not biased toward the teacher model's responses, to complement the training data. Building on this setup, we introduce AGDe-Judge, a three-stage framework designed to debias from both the labels and feedbacks in the training data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AGDe-Judge effectively reduces teacher preference bias while maintaining strong performance across six evaluation benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/Liuz233/AGDe-Judge.

Xiaoyuan Li, Wenjie Wang, Moxin Li et al.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the realm of mathematical reasoning necessitates comprehensive evaluations to gauge progress and inspire future directions. Existing assessments predominantly focus on problem-solving from the examinee perspective, overlooking a dual perspective of examiner regarding error identification and correction. From the examiner perspective, we define four evaluation tasks for error identification and correction along with a new dataset with annotated error types and steps. We also design diverse prompts to thoroughly evaluate eleven representative LLMs. Our principal findings indicate that GPT-4 outperforms all models, while open-source model LLaMA-2-7B demonstrates comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro. Notably, calculation error proves the most challenging error type. Moreover, prompting LLMs with the error types can improve the average correction accuracy by 47.9\%. These results reveal potential directions for developing the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our code and dataset is available on https://github.com/LittleCirc1e/EIC.

Moxin Li, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng et al.

Self-detection for Large Language Models (LLMs) seeks to evaluate the trustworthiness of the LLM's output by leveraging its own capabilities, thereby alleviating the issue of output hallucination. However, existing self-detection approaches only retrospectively evaluate answers generated by LLM, typically leading to the over-trust in incorrectly generated answers. To tackle this limitation, we propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. It thoroughly compares the trustworthiness of multiple candidate answers to mitigate the over-trust in LLM-generated incorrect answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer, and then aggregates the justifications for comprehensive target answer evaluation. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection. Extensive experiments on six datasets spanning three tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Xiaoyuan Li, Keqin Bao, Yubo Ma et al.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in complex reasoning tasks. However, current evaluations predominantly focus on single-turn reasoning scenarios, leaving interactive tasks largely unexplored. We attribute it to the absence of comprehensive datasets and scalable automatic evaluation protocols. To fill these gaps, we present MTR-Bench for LLMs' Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation. Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks, and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities, fine-grained difficulty granularity, and necessitates multi-turn interactions with the environments. Moreover, MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations, which enables scalable assessment without human interventions. Extensive experiments reveal that even the cutting-edge reasoning models fall short of multi-turn, interactive reasoning tasks. And the further analysis upon these results brings valuable insights for future research in interactive AI systems.

Xiaoyuan Li, Moxin Li, Rui Men et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in commonsense reasoning; however, some variations in questions can trigger incorrect responses. Do these models truly understand commonsense knowledge, or just memorize expression patterns? To investigate this question, we present the first extensive robustness evaluation of LLMs in commonsense reasoning. We introduce HellaSwag-Pro, a large-scale bilingual benchmark consisting of 11,200 cases, by designing and compiling seven types of question variants. To construct this benchmark, we propose a two-stage method to develop Chinese HellaSwag, a finely annotated dataset comprising 12,000 instances across 56 categories. We conduct extensive experiments on 41 representative LLMs, revealing that these LLMs are far from robust in commonsense reasoning. Furthermore, this robustness varies depending on the language in which the LLM is tested. This work establishes a high-quality evaluation benchmark, with extensive experiments offering valuable insights to the community in commonsense reasoning for LLMs.

Xiaoyuan Li, Moxin Li, Wenjie Wang et al.

Recent progress in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has enabled step-by-step multi-modal mathematical reasoning by performing visual operations based on the textual instructions. A promising approach uses code as an intermediate representation to precisely express and manipulate the images in the reasoning steps. However, existing evaluations focus mainly on text-only reasoning outputs, leaving the MLLM's ability to perform accurate visual operations via code largely unexplored. This work takes a first step toward addressing that gap by evaluating MLLM's code-based capabilities in multi-modal mathematical reasoning.Specifically, our framework focuses on two key evaluation aspects: (1) Multi-modal Code Generation (MCG) evaluates the model's ability to accurately understand and construct visualizations from scratch. (2) Multi-modal Code Editing (MCE) assesses the model's capacity for fine-grained operations, which include three types: Deletion, Modification and Annotation. To evaluate the above tasks, we incorporate a dataset that covers the five most popular types of mathematical figures, including geometric diagrams, function plots, and three types of statistical charts, to provide a comprehensive and effective measurement of existing MLLMs. Our experimental evaluation involves nine mainstream MLLMs, and the results reveal that existing models still lag significantly behind human performance in performing fine-grained visual operations.