Reasoning-oriented Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, yet they remain fundamentally limited by a blind self-thinking paradigm: performing extensive internal reasoning even when critical information is missing or ambiguous. We propose Proactive Interactive Reasoning (PIR), a new reasoning paradigm that transforms LLMs from passive solvers into proactive inquirers that interleave reasoning with clarification. Unlike existing search- or tool-based frameworks that primarily address knowledge uncertainty by querying external environments, PIR targets premise- and intent-level uncertainty through direct interaction with the user. PIR is implemented via two core components: (1) an uncertainty-aware supervised fine-tuning procedure that equips models with interactive reasoning capability, and (2) a user-simulator-based policy optimization framework driven by a composite reward that aligns model behavior with user intent. Extensive experiments on mathematical reasoning, code generation, and document editing demonstrate that PIR consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving up to 32.70% higher accuracy, 22.90% higher pass rate, and 41.36 BLEU improvement, while reducing nearly half of the reasoning computation and unnecessary interaction turns. Further reliability evaluations on factual knowledge, question answering, and missing-premise scenarios confirm the strong generalization and robustness of PIR.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating objective queries without considering real-world user experiences, inadequately addressing the nuances of creative and associative multimodal tasks. However, the open-ended and subjective nature of such tasks poses a significant challenge to the evaluation methodology, where it is difficult to define the ground-truth answers for them. To this end, in our paper, we propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge. To validate the feasibility and effectiveness of this paradigm, we design a benchmark, dubbed MLLM-Bench, by curating the evaluation samples across six comprehensive cognitive levels. We benchmark 26 popular MLLMs in a pairwise-comparison fashion, showing diverse performance across models. Moreover, the validity of our benchmark manifests itself in reaching 88.02% agreement with human evaluation. We contend that the proposed paradigm explores the potential of MLLMs as effective evaluation tools with the help of per-sample criteria.

Process-supervised reward models serve as a fine-grained function that provides detailed step-wise feedback to model responses, facilitating effective selection of reasoning trajectories for complex tasks. Despite its advantages, evaluation on PRMs remains less explored, especially in the multimodal domain. To address this gap, this paper first benchmarks current vision large language models (VLLMs) as two types of reward models: output reward models (ORMs) and process reward models (PRMs) on multiple vision-language benchmarks, which reveal that neither ORM nor PRM consistently outperforms across all tasks, and superior VLLMs do not necessarily yield better rewarding performance. To further advance evaluation, we introduce ViLBench, a vision-language benchmark designed to require intensive process reward signals. Notably, OpenAI’s GPT-4o with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) achieves only 27.3% accuracy, challenging current VLLMs. Lastly, we preliminarily showcase a promising pathway towards bridging the gap between general VLLMs and reward models—by collecting 73.6K vision-language process reward data using an enhanced tree-search algorithm, our 3B model is able to achieve an average improvement of 3.3% over standard CoT and up to 2.5% compared to its untrained counterpart on ViLBench by selecting OpenAI o1’s generations. We will release our code, model, and data at https://ucsc-vlaa.github.io/ViLBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a possibility to make a great breakthrough in medicine. The establishment of a standardized medical benchmark becomes a fundamental cornerstone to measure progression. However, medical environments in different regions have their local characteristics, e.g., the ubiquity and significance of traditional Chinese medicine within China. Therefore, merely translating English-based medical evaluation may result in contextual incongruities to a local region. To solve the issue, we propose a localized medical benchmark called CMB, a Comprehensive Medical Benchmark in Chinese, designed and rooted entirely within the native Chinese linguistic and cultural framework. While traditional Chinese medicine is integral to this evaluation, it does not constitute its entirety. Using this benchmark, we have evaluated several prominent large-scale LLMs, including ChatGPT, GPT-4, dedicated Chinese LLMs, and LLMs specialized in the medical domain. We hope this benchmark provide first-hand experience in existing LLMs for medicine and also facilitate the widespread adoption and enhancement of medical LLMs within China. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/FreedomIntelligence/CMB.

While most existing works on LLM prompting techniques focus only on how to select a better set of data samples inside one single prompt input (In-Context Learning or ICL), why can not we design and leverage multiple prompts together to further improve the LLM’s performance? In this work, we propose In-Context Sampling (ICS), a low-resource LLM prompting technique to produce confident predictions by optimizing the construction of multiple ICL prompt inputs. Extensive experiments with three open-source LLMs (FlanT5-XL, Mistral-7B, and Mixtral-8x7B) on four NLI datasets (e-SNLI, Multi-NLI, ANLI, and Contract-NLI) and one QA dataset (CommonsenseQA) illustrate that ICS can consistently enhance LLMs’ performance. An in-depth evaluation with three data similarity-based ICS strategies suggests that these strategies can further elevate LLM’s performance, which sheds light on a new yet promising future research direction.

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (*a.k.a* human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLMs, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating **Misinformation Oversight Bias**, **Gender Bias**, **Authority Bias** and **Beauty Bias** on LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset referring to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and conduct thousands of evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit these biases to conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the bias and vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

The rapid development of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), such as GPT-4V, has led to significant advancements. However, these models still face challenges in medical multimodal capabilities due to limitations in the quantity and quality of medical vision-text data, stemming from data privacy concerns and high annotation costs. While pioneering approaches utilize PubMed’s large-scale, de-identified medical image-text pairs to address these limitations, they often fall short due to inherent data noise. To tackle this, we refined medical image-text pairs from PubMed and employed MLLMs (GPT-4V) in an ‘unblinded’ capacity to denoise and reformat the data, resulting in the creation of the **PubMedVision** dataset with 1.3 million medical VQA samples. Our validation demonstrates that: (1) PubMedVision can significantly enhance the medical multimodal capabilities of MLLMs, showing significant improvement in benchmarks including the MMMU Health & Medicine track; (2) manual checks by medical experts and empirical results validate the superior data quality of our dataset compared to other data construction methods. Using PubMedVision, we train a 34B medical MLLM **HuatuoGPT-Vision**, which shows superior performance in medical multimodal scenarios among open-source MLLMs. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/FreedomIntelligence/HuatuoGPT-Vision.

In this paper, we present HuatuoGPT, a Large Language Model (LLM) for medical consultation. The core recipe of HuatuoGPT is to leverage both distilled data from **ChatGPT** and real-world data from **doctors** in the supervised fine-tuning stage. This is not only because purely using **ChatGPT**-distilled data might cause ‘model collapse’, but also because real-world data from **doctors** would be complementary to **ChatGPT**-distilled data. The responses from ChatGPT are usually detailed, well-presented, fluent, and instruction-followed, but it cannot perform like a doctor in many aspects, e.g. for interactive diagnosis. Therefore, the extra doctors’ data could tame a distilled language model to perform like doctors. To synergize the strengths of both data sources, we introduce RLMF (Reinforcement Learning from Mixed Feedback) where a reward model is trained to align the language model with the merits that both sources (ChatGPT and doctors) bring. Experimental results (in GPT-4 evaluation, human evaluation, and medical benchmark datasets) demonstrate that HuatuoGPT achieves state-of-the-art results in performing medical consultation among open-source LLMs. It is worth noting that by using additional real-world data and RLMF, the distilled language model (i.e., HuatuoGPT) outperforms its teacher model (i.e., ChatGPT) in most cases.

Masked language modeling (MLM) has been one of the most popular pretraining recipes in natural language processing, e.g., BERT, one of the representative models. Recently, contrastive language-image pretraining (CLIP) has also attracted attention, especially its vision models that achieve excellent performance on a broad range of vision tasks. However, few studies are dedicated to studying the text encoders learned by CLIP. In this paper, we analyze the difference between BERT-style and CLIP-style text encoders from three experiments: (i) general text understanding, (ii) vision-centric text understanding, and (iii) text-to-image generation. Experimental analyses show that although CLIP-style text encoders underperform BERT-style ones for general text understanding tasks, they are equipped with a unique ability, i.e., synesthesia, for the cross-modal association, which is more similar to the senses of humans.