Traffic flow forecasting aims to predict future traffic flows based on historical traffic conditions and the road network. It is an important problem in intelligent transportation systems, with a plethora of methods being proposed. Existing efforts mainly focus on capturing and utilizing spatio-temporal dependencies to predict future traffic flows. Though promising, they fall short in adapting to test-time environmental changes in traffic conditions. To tackle this challenge, we propose to introduce large language models (LLMs) to help traffic flow forecasting and design a novel method named Large Language Model Enhanced Traffic Flow Predictor (LEAF). LEAF adopts two branches, capturing different spatio-temporal relations using graph and hypergraph structures, respectively. The two branches are first pre-trained individually, and during test time, they yield different predictions. Based on these predictions, a large language model is used to select the most likely result. Then, a ranking loss is applied as the learning objective to enhance the prediction ability of the two branches. Extensive experiments on several datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of LEAF. Our code is available at https://github.com/YushengZhao/LEAF.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEVALPRO, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEVALPRO comprises 2,138 question triplets, totaling 6,414 distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEVALPRO is **more challenging** (the best LMM lags behind human performance by 31.73%, compared to an average gap of 8.03% in previous benchmarks) and **more trustworthy** (the best LLM trails the best LMM by 23.09%, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just 14.64%). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.