Ying Wang

Lin Chen, Xiaoke Zhao, Kun Ding et al.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate impressive cross-modal capabilities, yet their substantial size poses significant deployment challenges. Knowledge distillation (KD) is a promising solution for compressing these models, but existing methods primarily rely on static next-token alignment, neglecting the dynamic token interactions, which embed essential capabilities for multimodal understanding and generation. To this end, we introduce Align-TI, a novel KD framework designed from the perspective of Token Interactions. Our approach is motivated by the insight that MLLMs rely on two primary interactions: vision-instruction token interactions to extract relevant visual information, and intra-response token interactions for coherent generation. Accordingly, Align-TI introduces two components: IVA enables the student model to imitate the teacher's instruction-relevant visual information extract capability by aligning on salient visual regions. TPA captures the teacher's dynamic generative logic by aligning the sequential token-to-token transition probabilities. Extensive experiments demonstrate Align-TI's superiority. Notably, our approach achieves $2.6\%$ relative improvement over Vanilla KD, and our distilled Align-TI-2B even outperforms LLaVA-1.5-7B (a much larger MLLM) by $7.0\%$, establishing a new state-of-the-art distillation framework for training parameter-efficient MLLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/lchen1019/Align-TI.

Mohamed Afane, Kayla Laufer, Wenqi Wei et al.

Language models have become practical tools for quantum computing education and research, from summarizing technical papers to explaining theoretical concepts and answering questions about recent developments in the field. While existing benchmarks evaluate quantum code generation and circuit design, their understanding of quantum computing concepts has not been systematically measured. Quantum-Audit addresses this gap with 2,700 questions covering core quantum computing topics. We evaluate 26 models from leading organizations. Our benchmark comprises 1,000 expert-written questions, 1,000 questions extracted from research papers using LLMs and validated by experts, plus an additional 700 questions including 350 open-ended questions and 350 questions with false premises to test whether models can correct erroneous assumptions. Human participants scored between 23% and 86%, with experts averaging 74%. Top-performing models exceeded the expert average, with Claude Opus 4.5 reaching 84% accuracy, though top models showed an average 12-point accuracy drop on expert-written questions compared to LLM-generated ones. Performance declined further on advanced topics, dropping to 73% on security questions. Additionally, models frequently accepted and reinforced false premises embedded in questions instead of identifying them, with accuracy below 66% on these critical reasoning tasks.