MMCR: Benchmarking Cross-Source Reasoning in Scientific Papers

Fully comprehending scientific papers by machines reflects a high level of Artificial General Intelligence, requiring the ability to reason across fragmented and heterogeneous sources of information, presenting a complex and practically significant challenge. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made remarkable strides in various tasks, particularly those involving reasoning with evidence source from single image or text page, their ability to use cross-source information for reasoning remains an open problem. This work presents MMCR, a high-difficulty benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs' capacity for reasoning with cross-source information from scientific papers. The benchmark comprises 276 high-quality questions, meticulously annotated by humans across 7 subjects and 10 task types. Experiments with 18 VLMs demonstrate that cross-source reasoning presents a substantial challenge for existing models. Notably, even the top-performing model, GPT-4o, achieved only 48.55% overall accuracy, with only 20% accuracy in multi-table comprehension tasks, while the second-best model, Qwen2.5-VL-72B, reached 39.86% overall accuracy. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique on cross-source reasoning and observed a detrimental effect on small models, whereas larger models demonstrated substantially enhanced performance. These results highlight the pressing need to develop VLMs capable of effectively utilizing cross-source information for reasoning.

Exploring the Multilingual NLG Evaluation Abilities of LLM-Based Evaluators

Previous research has shown that LLMs have potential in multilingual NLG evaluation tasks. However, existing research has not fully explored the differences in the evaluation capabilities of LLMs across different languages. To this end, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the multilingual evaluation performance of 10 recent LLMs, spanning high-resource and low-resource languages through correlation analysis, perturbation attacks, and fine-tuning. We found that 1) excluding the reference answer from the prompt and using large-parameter LLM-based evaluators leads to better performance across various languages; 2) most LLM-based evaluators show a higher correlation with human judgments in high-resource languages than in low-resource languages; 3) in the languages where they are most sensitive to such attacks, they also tend to exhibit the highest correlation with human judgments; and 4) fine-tuning with data from a particular language yields a broadly consistent enhancement in the model's evaluation performance across diverse languages. Our findings highlight the imbalance in LLMs'evaluation capabilities across different languages and suggest that low-resource language scenarios deserve more attention.

Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review

We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review. Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the peer review process-papers, reviews, and rebuttals-across several quality aspects, including contribution, soundness, presentation, tone, and completeness. By applying targeted perturbations and examining their effects on both LLM-as-Reviewer and LLM-as-Meta-Reviewer, we investigate how aspect-based manipulations, such as omitting methodological details from papers or altering reviewer conclusions, can introduce significant biases in the review process. We identify several potential vulnerabilities: review conclusions that recommend a strong reject may significantly influence meta-reviews, negative or misleading reviews may be wrongly interpreted as thorough, and incomplete or hostile rebuttals can unexpectedly lead to higher acceptance rates. Statistical tests show that these biases persist under various Chain-of-Thought prompting strategies, highlighting the lack of robust critical evaluation in current LLMs. Our framework offers a practical methodology for diagnosing these vulnerabilities, thereby contributing to the development of more reliable and robust automated reviewing systems.

A Dual-Perspective NLG Meta-Evaluation Framework with Automatic Benchmark and Better Interpretability

In NLG meta-evaluation, evaluation metrics are typically assessed based on their consistency with humans. However, we identify some limitations in traditional NLG meta-evaluation approaches, such as issues in handling human ratings and ambiguous selections of correlation measures, which undermine the effectiveness of meta-evaluation. In this work, we propose a dual-perspective NLG meta-evaluation framework that focuses on different evaluation capabilities, thereby providing better interpretability. In addition, we introduce a method of automatically constructing the corresponding benchmarks without requiring new human annotations. Furthermore, we conduct experiments with 16 representative LLMs as the evaluators based on our proposed framework, comprehensively analyzing their evaluation performance from different perspectives.

Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference

Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. Due to the high cost and time-consuming nature of human evaluations, an automatic LLM bencher (i.e., an automatic evaluation framework that aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences) is indispensable. An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set (e.g., a user instruction), the evaluation model (e.g., an LLM), the evaluation type (e.g., pairwise comparison), and the aggregation method (e.g., the ELO rating system). However, previous work has not thoroughly explored how to select these components or how their different combinations influence the results. In this work, through controlled experiments, we provide a series of recommendations on how to choose each component to better automate the evaluation of LLMs. Furthermore, we discovered that when evaluating LLMs with similar performance, the performance of the automatic LLM bencher declines sharply, underscoring the limitations of current benchers and calling for future work. Lastly, we found that the evaluation models' performance at the instance level (e.g., the accuracy of selecting the best output) does not always align with their effectiveness when used as a component of a bencher, highlighting the importance of dedicated system-level evaluation of benchers.

Analyzing and Evaluating Correlation Measures in NLG Meta-Evaluation

The correlation between NLG automatic evaluation metrics and human evaluation is often regarded as a critical criterion for assessing the capability of an evaluation metric. However, different grouping methods and correlation coefficients result in various types of correlation measures used in meta-evaluation. In specific evaluation scenarios, prior work often directly follows conventional measure settings, but the characteristics and differences between these measures have not gotten sufficient attention. Therefore, this paper analyzes 12 common correlation measures using a large amount of real-world data from six widely-used NLG evaluation datasets and 32 evaluation metrics, revealing that different measures indeed impact the meta-evaluation results. Furthermore, we propose three perspectives that reflect the capability of meta-evaluation and find that the measure using global grouping and Pearson correlation exhibits the best overall performance, involving the discriminative power, ranking consistency, and sensitivity to score granularity.

Themis: Towards Flexible and Interpretable NLG Evaluation

The evaluation of natural language generation (NLG) tasks is a significant and longstanding research issue. With the recent emergence of powerful large language models (LLMs), some studies have turned to LLM-based automatic evaluation methods, which demonstrate great potential to become a new evaluation paradigm following traditional string-based and model-based metrics. However, despite the improved performance of existing methods, they still possess some deficiencies, such as dependency on references and limited evaluation flexibility. Therefore, in this paper, we meticulously construct a large-scale NLG evaluation corpus NLG-Eval with human and GPT-4 annotations to alleviate the lack of relevant data in this field. Furthermore, we propose Themis, an LLM dedicated to NLG evaluation, which has been trained with our designed multi-perspective consistency and rating-oriented preference alignment methods. Themis can conduct flexible and interpretable evaluations without references, and it exhibits superior evaluation performance on various NLG tasks, simultaneously generalizing well to unseen tasks and surpassing other evaluation models, including GPT-4.

PVUW 2024 Challenge on Complex Video Understanding: Methods and Results

Pixel-level Video Understanding in the Wild Challenge (PVUW) focus on complex video understanding. In this CVPR 2024 workshop, we add two new tracks, Complex Video Object Segmentation Track based on MOSE dataset and Motion Expression guided Video Segmentation track based on MeViS dataset. In the two new tracks, we provide additional videos and annotations that feature challenging elements, such as the disappearance and reappearance of objects, inconspicuous small objects, heavy occlusions, and crowded environments in MOSE. Moreover, we provide a new motion expression guided video segmentation dataset MeViS to study the natural language-guided video understanding in complex environments. These new videos, sentences, and annotations enable us to foster the development of a more comprehensive and robust pixel-level understanding of video scenes in complex environments and realistic scenarios. The MOSE challenge had 140 registered teams in total, 65 teams participated the validation phase and 12 teams made valid submissions in the final challenge phase. The MeViS challenge had 225 registered teams in total, 50 teams participated the validation phase and 5 teams made valid submissions in the final challenge phase.

Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Sampling

Human evaluation is viewed as a reliable evaluation method for NLG which is expensive and time-consuming. To save labor and costs, researchers usually perform human evaluation on a small subset of data sampled from the whole dataset in practice. However, different selection subsets will lead to different rankings of the systems. To give a more correct inter-system ranking and make the gold standard human evaluation more reliable, we propose a Constrained Active Sampling Framework (CASF) for reliable human judgment. CASF operates through a Learner, a Systematic Sampler and a Constrained Controller to select representative samples for getting a more correct inter-system ranking.Experiment results on 137 real NLG evaluation setups with 44 human evaluation metrics across 16 datasets and 5 NLG tasks demonstrate CASF receives 93.18% top-ranked system recognition accuracy and ranks first or ranks second on 90.91% of the human metrics with 0.83 overall inter-system ranking Kendall correlation.Code and data are publicly available online.

1st Place Solution for MeViS Track in CVPR 2024 PVUW Workshop: Motion Expression guided Video Segmentation

Motion Expression guided Video Segmentation (MeViS), as an emerging task, poses many new challenges to the field of referring video object segmentation (RVOS). In this technical report, we investigated and validated the effectiveness of static-dominant data and frame sampling on this challenging setting. Our solution achieves a J&F score of 0.5447 in the competition phase and ranks 1st in the MeViS track of the PVUW Challenge. The code is available at: https://github.com/Tapall-AI/MeViS_Track_Solution_2024.