Yiqing Ni

Xue Liu, Xin Ma, Yuxin Ma et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.

Suyang Xi, Chenxi Yang, Hong Ding et al.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often fail in fine-grained visual question answering, producing hallucinations about object identities, positions, and relations because textual queries are not explicitly anchored to visual referents. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) alleviates some errors, but it fails to align with human-like processing at both the retrieval and augmentation levels. Specifically, it focuses only on global-level image information but lacks local detail and limits reasoning about fine-grained interactions. To overcome this limitation, we present Human-Like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (HuLiRAG), a framework that stages multimodal reasoning as a ``what--where--reweight'' cascade. Queries are first anchored to candidate referents via open-vocabulary detection (what), then spatially resolved with SAM-derived masks to recover fine-grained precision (where), and adaptively prioritized through the trade-off between local and global alignment (reweight). Mask-guided fine-tuning further injects spatial evidence into the generation process, transforming grounding from a passive bias into an explicit constraint on answer formulation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that this human-like cascade improves grounding fidelity and factual consistency while reducing hallucinations, advancing multimodal question answering toward trustworthy reasoning.