The paradigm of using Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as evaluative judges has emerged as an effective approach in RLHF and inference-time scaling. In this work, we propose Multimodal Reasoner as a Judge (MR. Judge), a paradigm for empowering general-purpose MLLMs judges with strong reasoning capabilities. Instead of directly assigning scores for each response, we formulate the judgement process as a reasoning-inspired multiple-choice problem. Specifically, the judge model first conducts deliberate reasoning covering different aspects of the responses and eventually selects the best response from them. This reasoning process not only improves the interpretibility of the judgement, but also greatly enhances the performance of MLLM judges. To cope with the lack of questions with scored responses, we propose the following strategy to achieve automatic annotation: 1) Reverse Response Candidates Synthesis: starting from a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) dataset, we treat the original response as the best candidate and prompt the MLLM to generate plausible but flawed negative candidates. 2) Text-based reasoning distillation: we carefully design a data synthesis pipeline for distilling the reasoning capability from a text-based reasoning model, which is adopted to enable the MLLM judges to regain complex reasoning ability via warm up supervised fine-tuning. Experiments demonstrate that our MR. Judge is effective across a wide range of tasks. Specifically, our MR. Judge-7B surpasses GPT-4o by 9.9% on VL-RewardBench, and improves performance on MM-Vet during inference-time scaling by up to 7.7%.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have increased the demand for comprehensive benchmarks to evaluate their capabilities as human-like agents. Existing benchmarks, while useful, often focus on specific application scenarios, emphasizing task completion but failing to dissect the underlying skills that drive these outcomes. This lack of granularity makes it difficult to deeply discern where failures stem from. Additionally, setting up these environments requires considerable effort, and issues of unreliability and reproducibility sometimes arise, especially in interactive tasks. To address these limitations, we introduce the Massive Multitask Agent Understanding (MMAU) benchmark, featuring comprehensive offline tasks that eliminate the need for complex environment setups. It evaluate models across five domains, including Tool-use, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) QA, Data Science and Machine Learning coding, Contest-level programming and Mathematics, and covering five essential capabilities: Understanding, Reasoning, Planning, Problem-solving, and Self-correction. With a total of 20 meticulously designed tasks encompassing over 3K distinct prompts, MMAU provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the strengths and limitations of LLM agents. By testing 20 representative models on MMAU, we provide deep and insightful analyses. Ultimately, MMAU not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also enhances the interpretability of their performance.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human expectations without human-annotated preference data is an important problem. In this paper, we propose a method to evaluate the response preference by using the output probabilities of response pairs under contrastive prompt pairs, which could achieve better performance on LLaMA2-7B and LLaMA2-13B compared to RLAIF. Based on this, we propose an automatic alignment method, Direct Large Model Alignment (DLMA). First, we use contrastive prompt pairs to automatically generate preference data. Then, we continue to evaluate the generated preference data using contrastive prompt pairs and calculate a self-rewarding score. Finally, we use the DPO algorithm to effectively align LLMs by combining this self-rewarding score. In the experimental stage, our DLMA method could surpass the RLHF method without relying on human-annotated preference data.