Multimodal Large Language Models advance multimodal representation learning by acquiring transferable semantic embeddings, thereby substantially enhancing performance across a range of vision-language tasks, including cross-modal retrieval, clustering, and classification. An effective embedding is expected to comprehensively preserve the semantic content of the input while simultaneously emphasizing features that are discriminative for downstream tasks. Recent approaches demonstrate that MLLMs can be adapted into competitive embedding models via large-scale contrastive learning, enabling the simultaneous optimization of two complementary objectives. We argue that the two aforementioned objectives can be decoupled: a comprehensive understanding of the input enables the embedding model to achieve superior performance on downstream tasks via contrastive learning. In this paper, we propose CoMa, a compressed pre-training phase, which serves as a warm-up stage for contrastive learning. Experiments demonstrate that with only a small amount of pre-training data, we can transform an MLLM into a competitive embedding model. CoMa achieves new state-of-the-art results among MLLMs of comparable size on the MMEB, realizing optimization in both efficiency and effectiveness. Our project is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-Information-Access/CoMa.

Code security and usability are both essential for various coding assistant applications driven by large language models (LLMs). Current code security benchmarks focus solely on single evaluation task and paradigm, such as code completion and generation, lacking comprehensive assessment across dimensions like secure code generation, vulnerability repair and discrimination. In this paper, we first propose CoV-Eval, a multi-task benchmark covering various tasks such as code completion, vulnerability repair, vulnerability detection and classification, for comprehensive evaluation of LLM code security. Besides, we developed VC-Judge, an improved judgment model that aligns closely with human experts and can review LLM-generated programs for vulnerabilities in a more efficient and reliable way. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 20 proprietary and open-source LLMs. Overall, while most LLMs identify vulnerable codes well, they still tend to generate insecure codes and struggle with recognizing specific vulnerability types and performing repairs. Extensive experiments and qualitative analyses reveal key challenges and optimization directions, offering insights for future research in LLM code security.