The evaluation of large language models is a complex task, in which several approaches have been proposed. The most common is the use of automated benchmarks in which LLMs have to answer multiple-choice questions of different topics. However, this method has certain limitations, being the most concerning, the poor correlation with the humans. An alternative approach, is to have humans evaluate the LLMs. This poses scalability issues as there is a large and growing number of models to evaluate making it impractical (and costly) to run traditional studies based on recruiting a number of evaluators and having them rank the responses of the models. An alternative approach is the use of public arenas, such as the popular LM arena, on which any user can freely evaluate models on any question and rank the responses of two models. The results are then elaborated into a model ranking. An increasingly important aspect of LLMs is their energy consumption and, therefore, evaluating how energy awareness influences the decisions of humans in selecting a model is of interest. In this paper, we present GEA, the Generative Energy Arena, an arena that incorporates information on the energy consumption of the model in the evaluation process. Preliminary results obtained with GEA are also presented, showing that for most questions, when users are aware of the energy consumption, they favor smaller and more energy efficient models. This suggests that for most user interactions, the extra cost and energy incurred by the more complex and top-performing models do not provide an increase in the perceived quality of the responses that justifies their use.
Analogies test a model's ability to infer implicit relationships between concepts, making them a key benchmark for evaluating reasoning capabilities. While large language models (LLMs) are widely evaluated for reasoning in English, their abilities in Indic languages remain understudied, limiting our understanding of whether these models generalize across languages. To address this gap, we introduce a new Hindi Analogy Test Set (HATS), comprising 405 multiple-choice questions sourced from Indian government exams. We benchmark state-of-the-art multilingual LLMs using various prompting strategies and introduce a grounded Chain of Thought approach that leverages cognitive theories of analogical reasoning. This approach improves model performance on Hindi analogy questions. Our experiments show that models perform best with English prompts, irrespective of the prompting strategy. Our test set addresses the lack of a critical resource to evaluate LLM reasoning capabilities in Hindi.
Recent advancements in multimodal large language models have successfully extended the Reason-Then-Respond paradigm to image-based reasoning, yet video-based reasoning remains an underdeveloped frontier, primarily due to the scarcity of high-quality reasoning-oriented data and effective training methodologies. To bridge this gap, we introduce DarkEventInfer and MixVidQA, two novel datasets specifically designed to stimulate the model's advanced video understanding and reasoning abilities. DarkEventinfer presents videos with masked event segments, requiring models to infer the obscured content based on contextual video cues. MixVidQA, on the other hand, presents interleaved video sequences composed of two distinct clips, challenging models to isolate and reason about one while disregarding the other. Leveraging these carefully curated training samples together with reinforcement learning guided by diverse reward functions, we develop VersaVid-R1, the first versatile video understanding and reasoning model under the Reason-Then-Respond paradigm capable of handling multiple-choice and open-ended question answering, as well as video captioning tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VersaVid-R1 significantly outperforms existing models across a broad spectrum of benchmarks, covering video general understanding, cognitive reasoning, and captioning tasks.
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed various domains, particularly computer science (CS) education. These models exhibit remarkable capabilities in code-related tasks and problem-solving, raising questions about their potential and limitations in advanced CS contexts. This study presents a novel bilingual (English-Romanian) multimodal (text and image) dataset of multiple-choice questions derived from a high-level computer science competition. A particularity of our dataset is that the problems are conceived such that some of them are easier solved using reasoning on paper, while for others writing code is more efficient. We systematically evaluate State of The Art LLMs on this dataset, analyzing their performance on theoretical programming tasks. Our findings reveal the strengths and limitations of current LLMs, including the influence of language choice (English vs. Romanian), providing insights into their applicability in CS education and competition settings. We also address critical ethical considerations surrounding educational integrity and the fairness of assessments in the context of LLM usage. These discussions aim to inform future educational practices and policies. To support further research, our dataset will be made publicly available in both English and Romanian. Additionally, we release an educational application tailored for Romanian students, enabling them to self-assess using the dataset in an interactive and practice-oriented environment.
World models -- generative models that simulate environment dynamics conditioned on past observations and actions -- are gaining prominence in planning, simulation, and embodied AI. However, evaluating their rollouts remains a fundamental challenge, requiring fine-grained, temporally grounded assessment of action alignment and semantic consistency -- capabilities not captured by existing metrics. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown promise as automatic evaluators of generative content due to their strong multimodal reasoning abilities. Yet, their use in fine-grained, temporally sensitive evaluation tasks remains limited and requires targeted adaptation. We introduce a evaluation protocol targeting two recognition tasks -- action recognition and character recognition -- each assessed across binary, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats. To support this, we present UNIVERSE (UNIfied Vision-language Evaluator for Rollouts in Simulated Environments), a method for adapting VLMs to rollout evaluation under data and compute constraints. We conduct a large-scale study comparing full, partial, and parameter-efficient finetuning across task formats, context lengths, sampling strategies, and data compositions. The resulting unified evaluator matches the performance of task-specific baselines using a single checkpoint. Human studies confirm strong alignment with human judgments, establishing UNIVERSE as a scalable, semantics-aware evaluator for world models.
Documents are fundamental to preserving and disseminating information, often incorporating complex layouts, tables, and charts that pose significant challenges for automatic document understanding (DU). While vision-language large models (VLLMs) have demonstrated improvements across various tasks, their effectiveness in processing long-context vision inputs remains unclear. This paper introduces WikiMixQA, a benchmark comprising 1,000 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) designed to evaluate cross-modal reasoning over tables and charts extracted from 4,000 Wikipedia pages spanning seven distinct topics. Unlike existing benchmarks, WikiMixQA emphasizes complex reasoning by requiring models to synthesize information from multiple modalities. We evaluate 12 state-of-the-art vision-language models, revealing that while proprietary models achieve ~70% accuracy when provided with direct context, their performance deteriorates significantly when retrieval from long documents is required. Among these, GPT-4-o is the only model exceeding 50% accuracy in this setting, whereas open-source models perform considerably worse, with a maximum accuracy of 27%. These findings underscore the challenges of long-context, multi-modal reasoning and establish WikiMixQA as a crucial benchmark for advancing document understanding research.
As financial institutions increasingly adopt Large Language Models (LLMs), rigorous domain-specific evaluation becomes critical for responsible deployment. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmark evaluating 23 state-of-the-art LLMs on the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Level III exam - the gold standard for advanced financial reasoning. We assess both multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and essay-style responses using multiple prompting strategies including Chain-of-Thought and Self-Discover. Our evaluation reveals that leading models demonstrate strong capabilities, with composite scores such as 79.1% (o4-mini) and 77.3% (Gemini 2.5 Flash) on CFA Level III. These results, achieved under a revised, stricter essay grading methodology, indicate significant progress in LLM capabilities for high-stakes financial applications. Our findings provide crucial guidance for practitioners on model selection and highlight remaining challenges in cost-effective deployment and the need for nuanced interpretation of performance against professional benchmarks.
We investigate whether off-the-shelf Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can tackle Online Episodic-Memory Video Question Answering (OEM-VQA) without additional training. Our pipeline converts a streaming egocentric video into a lightweight textual memory, only a few kilobytes per minute, via an MLLM descriptor module, and answers multiple-choice questions by querying this memory with an LLM reasoner module. On the QAEgo4D-Closed benchmark, our best configuration attains 56.0% accuracy with 3.6 kB per minute storage, matching the performance of dedicated state-of-the-art systems while being 10**4/10**5 times more memory-efficient. Extensive ablations provides insights into the role of each component and design choice, and highlight directions of improvement for future research.
In this paper, we introduce OmniEval, a benchmark for evaluating omni-modality models like MiniCPM-O 2.6, which encompasses visual, auditory, and textual inputs. Compared with existing benchmarks, our OmniEval has several distinctive features: (i) Full-modal collaboration: We design evaluation tasks that highlight the strong coupling between audio and video, requiring models to effectively leverage the collaborative perception of all modalities; (ii) Diversity of videos: OmniEval includes 810 audio-visual synchronized videos, 285 Chinese videos and 525 English videos; (iii) Diversity and granularity of tasks: OmniEval contains 2617 question-answer pairs, comprising 1412 open-ended questions and 1205 multiple-choice questions. These questions are divided into 3 major task types and 12 sub-task types to achieve comprehensive evaluation. Among them, we introduce a more granular video localization task named Grounding. Then we conduct experiments on OmniEval with several omni-modality models. We hope that our OmniEval can provide a platform for evaluating the ability to construct and understand coherence from the context of all modalities. Codes and data could be found at https://omnieval.github.io/.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly appear in social science research (e.g., economics and marketing), it becomes crucial to assess how well these models replicate human behavior. In this work, using hypothesis testing, we present a quantitative framework to assess the misalignment between LLM-simulated and actual human behaviors in multiple-choice survey settings. This framework allows us to determine in a principled way whether a specific language model can effectively simulate human opinions, decision-making, and general behaviors represented through multiple-choice options. We applied this framework to a popular language model for simulating people's opinions in various public surveys and found that this model is ill-suited for simulating the tested sub-populations (e.g., across different races, ages, and incomes) for contentious questions. This raises questions about the alignment of this language model with the tested populations, highlighting the need for new practices in using LLMs for social science studies beyond naive simulations of human subjects.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across diverse natural language processing (NLP) tasks. The release of open-source LLMs like LLaMA and Qwen has triggered the development of numerous fine-tuned models tailored for various tasks and languages. In this paper, we explore an important question: is it possible to combine these specialized models to create a unified model with multi-task capabilities. We introduces Hierarchical Iterative Merging (Hi-Merging), a training-free method for unifying different specialized LLMs into a single model. Specifically, Hi-Merging employs model-wise and layer-wise pruning and scaling, guided by contribution analysis, to mitigate parameter conflicts. Extensive experiments on multiple-choice and question-answering tasks in both Chinese and English validate Hi-Merging's ability for multi-task learning. The results demonstrate that Hi-Merging consistently outperforms existing merging techniques and surpasses the performance of models fine-tuned on combined datasets in most scenarios. Code is available at: https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/Hi-Merging.
We introduce STSBench, a scenario-based framework to benchmark the holistic understanding of vision-language models (VLMs) for autonomous driving. The framework automatically mines pre-defined traffic scenarios from any dataset using ground-truth annotations, provides an intuitive user interface for efficient human verification, and generates multiple-choice questions for model evaluation. Applied to the NuScenes dataset, we present STSnu, the first benchmark that evaluates the spatio-temporal reasoning capabilities of VLMs based on comprehensive 3D perception. Existing benchmarks typically target off-the-shelf or fine-tuned VLMs for images or videos from a single viewpoint and focus on semantic tasks such as object recognition, dense captioning, risk assessment, or scene understanding. In contrast, STSnu evaluates driving expert VLMs for end-to-end driving, operating on videos from multi-view cameras or LiDAR. It specifically assesses their ability to reason about both ego-vehicle actions and complex interactions among traffic participants, a crucial capability for autonomous vehicles. The benchmark features 43 diverse scenarios spanning multiple views and frames, resulting in 971 human-verified multiple-choice questions. A thorough evaluation uncovers critical shortcomings in existing models' ability to reason about fundamental traffic dynamics in complex environments. These findings highlight the urgent need for architectural advances that explicitly model spatio-temporal reasoning. By addressing a core gap in spatio-temporal evaluation, STSBench enables the development of more robust and explainable VLMs for autonomous driving.
Physics problem-solving is a challenging domain for large AI models, requiring integration of conceptual understanding, mathematical reasoning, and interpretation of physical diagrams. Current evaluation methodologies show notable limitations in capturing the breadth and complexity of undergraduate-level physics, underscoring the need for more rigorous assessments. To this end, we present PhysUniBench, a large-scale multimodal benchmark designed to evaluate and improve the reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) specifically on undergraduate-level physics problems. PhysUniBench consists of 3,304 physics questions spanning 8 major sub-disciplines of physics, each accompanied by one visual diagrams. The benchmark includes both open-ended and multiple-choice questions, systematically curated and difficulty-rated through an iterative model-in-the-loop process. The benchmark's construction involved a rigorous multi-stage process, including multiple roll-outs, expert-level evaluation, automated filtering of easily solved problems, and a nuanced difficulty grading system with five levels. Through extensive experiments, we observe that current state-of-the-art models encounter substantial challenges in physics reasoning. For example, GPT-4o mini achieves only about 34.2% accuracy in the proposed PhysUniBench. These results highlight that current MLLMs struggle with advanced physics reasoning, especially on multi-step problems and those requiring precise diagram interpretation. By providing a broad and rigorous assessment tool, PhysUniBench aims to drive progress in AI for Science, encouraging the development of models with stronger physical reasoning, problem-solving skills, and multimodal understanding. The benchmark and evaluation scripts are available at https://prismax-team.github.io/PhysUniBenchmark/.
Culture is a rich and dynamic domain that evolves across both geography and time. However, existing studies on cultural understanding with vision-language models (VLMs) primarily emphasize geographic diversity, often overlooking the critical temporal dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Hanfu-Bench, a novel, expert-curated multimodal dataset. Hanfu, a traditional garment spanning ancient Chinese dynasties, serves as a representative cultural heritage that reflects the profound temporal aspects of Chinese culture while remaining highly popular in Chinese contemporary society. Hanfu-Bench comprises two core tasks: cultural visual understanding and cultural image transcreation.The former task examines temporal-cultural feature recognition based on single- or multi-image inputs through multiple-choice visual question answering, while the latter focuses on transforming traditional attire into modern designs through cultural element inheritance and modern context adaptation. Our evaluation shows that closed VLMs perform comparably to non-experts on visual cutural understanding but fall short by 10\% to human experts, while open VLMs lags further behind non-experts. For the transcreation task, multi-faceted human evaluation indicates that the best-performing model achieves a success rate of only 42\%. Our benchmark provides an essential testbed, revealing significant challenges in this new direction of temporal cultural understanding and creative adaptation.
Negation is a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that poses persistent challenges for Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in tasks requiring deep semantic understanding. Existing benchmarks often treat negation as a side case within broader tasks like natural language inference, resulting in a lack of benchmarks that exclusively target negation understanding. In this work, we introduce \textbf{Thunder-NUBench}, a novel benchmark explicitly designed to assess sentence-level negation understanding in LLMs. Thunder-NUBench goes beyond surface-level cue detection by contrasting standard negation with structurally diverse alternatives such as local negation, contradiction, and paraphrase. The benchmark consists of manually curated sentence-negation pairs and a multiple-choice dataset that enables in-depth evaluation of models' negation understanding.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential in medical question answering (MedQA), yet adapting them to biomedical reasoning remains challenging due to domain-specific complexity and limited supervision. In this work, we study how prompt design and lightweight fine-tuning affect the performance of open-source LLMs on PubMedQA, a benchmark for multiple-choice biomedical questions. We focus on two widely used prompting strategies - standard instruction prompts and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts - and apply QLoRA for parameter-efficient instruction tuning. Across multiple model families and sizes, our experiments show that CoT prompting alone can improve reasoning in zero-shot settings, while instruction tuning significantly boosts accuracy. However, fine-tuning on CoT prompts does not universally enhance performance and may even degrade it for certain larger models. These findings suggest that reasoning-aware prompts are useful, but their benefits are model- and scale-dependent. Our study offers practical insights into combining prompt engineering with efficient finetuning for medical QA applications.
The recent success of generative AI highlights the crucial role of high-quality human feedback in building trustworthy AI systems. However, the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) by crowdsourcing workers poses a significant challenge: datasets intended to reflect human input may be compromised by LLM-generated responses. Existing LLM detection approaches often rely on high-dimension training data such as text, making them unsuitable for annotation tasks like multiple-choice labeling. In this work, we investigate the potential of peer prediction -- a mechanism that evaluates the information within workers' responses without using ground truth -- to mitigate LLM-assisted cheating in crowdsourcing with a focus on annotation tasks. Our approach quantifies the correlations between worker answers while conditioning on (a subset of) LLM-generated labels available to the requester. Building on prior research, we propose a training-free scoring mechanism with theoretical guarantees under a crowdsourcing model that accounts for LLM collusion. We establish conditions under which our method is effective and empirically demonstrate its robustness in detecting low-effort cheating on real-world crowdsourcing datasets.
Existing benchmarks for assessing the spatio-temporal understanding and reasoning abilities of video language models are susceptible to score inflation due to the presence of shortcut solutions based on superficial visual or textual cues. This paper mitigates the challenges in accurately assessing model performance by introducing the Minimal Video Pairs (MVP) benchmark, a simple shortcut-aware video QA benchmark for assessing the physical understanding of video language models. The benchmark is comprised of 55K high-quality multiple-choice video QA examples focusing on physical world understanding. Examples are curated from nine video data sources, spanning first-person egocentric and exocentric videos, robotic interaction data, and cognitive science intuitive physics benchmarks. To mitigate shortcut solutions that rely on superficial visual or textual cues and biases, each sample in MVP has a minimal-change pair -- a visually similar video accompanied by an identical question but an opposing answer. To answer a question correctly, a model must provide correct answers for both examples in the minimal-change pair; as such, models that solely rely on visual or textual biases would achieve below random performance. Human performance on MVP is 92.9\%, while the best open-source state-of-the-art video-language model achieves 40.2\% compared to random performance at 25\%.
Accurate and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates are essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support. We present a fine-grained evaluation of uncertainty estimation methods for clinical multiple-choice question answering, covering ten open-source LLMs (general-purpose, biomedical, and reasoning models) across two datasets, eleven medical specialties, and six question types. We compare standard single-generation and sampling-based methods, and present a case study exploring simple, single-pass estimators based on behavioral signals in reasoning traces. These lightweight methods approach the performance of Semantic Entropy while requiring only one generation. Our results reveal substantial variation across specialties and question types, underscoring the importance of selecting models based on both the nature of the question and model-specific strengths.
Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine is crucial because medical applications require high accuracy with little room for error. Current medical benchmarks have three main types: medical exam-based, comprehensive medical, and specialized assessments. However, these benchmarks have limitations in question design (mostly multiple-choice), data sources (often not derived from real clinical scenarios), and evaluation methods (poor assessment of complex reasoning). To address these issues, we present LLMEval-Med, a new benchmark covering five core medical areas, including 2,996 questions created from real-world electronic health records and expert-designed clinical scenarios. We also design an automated evaluation pipeline, incorporating expert-developed checklists into our LLM-as-Judge framework. Furthermore, our methodology validates machine scoring through human-machine agreement analysis, dynamically refining checklists and prompts based on expert feedback to ensure reliability. We evaluate 13 LLMs across three categories (specialized medical models, open-source models, and closed-source models) on LLMEval-Med, providing valuable insights for the safe and effective deployment of LLMs in medical domains. The dataset is released in https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Med.