Bohan Wu

Jason T. Isa, Bohan Wu, Qirui Wang et al.

As interactions between humans and AI become more prevalent, it is critical to have better predictors of human behavior in these interactions. We investigated how changes in the AI's adaptive algorithm impact behavior predictions in two-player continuous games. In our experiments, the AI adapted its actions using a gradient descent algorithm under different adaptation rates while human participants were provided cost feedback. The cost feedback was provided by one of two types of visual displays: (a) cost at the current joint action vector, or (b) cost in a local neighborhood of the current joint action vector. Our results demonstrate that AI adaptation rate can significantly affect human behavior, having the ability to shift the outcome between two game theoretic equilibrium. We observed that slow adaptation rates shift the outcome towards the Nash equilibrium, while fast rates shift the outcome towards the human-led Stackelberg equilibrium. The addition of localized cost information had the effect of shifting outcomes towards Nash, compared to the outcomes from cost information at only the current joint action vector. Future work will investigate other effects that influence the convergence of gradient descent games.

Jinsheng Huang, Liang Chen, Taian Guo et al.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises $2,138$ question triplets, totaling $6,414$ distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by $31.73\%$, compared to an average gap of $8.03\%$ in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by $23.09\%$, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just $14.64\%$). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.