As multimodal large language models (MLLMs) gain prominence in the medical field, the need for precise evaluation methods to assess their effectiveness has become critical. While benchmarks provide a reliable means to evaluate the capabilities of MLLMs, traditional metrics like ROUGE and BLEU employed for open domain evaluation only focus on token overlap and may not align with human judgment. Although human evaluation is more reliable, it is labor-intensive, costly, and not scalable. LLM-based evaluation methods have proven promising, but to date, there is still an urgent need for open-source multimodal LLM-based evaluators in the medical field. To address this issue, we introduce ACE-$M^3$, an open-sourced \textbf{A}utomatic \textbf{C}apability \textbf{E}valuator for \textbf{M}ultimodal \textbf{M}edical \textbf{M}odels specifically designed to assess the question answering abilities of medical MLLMs. It first utilizes a branch-merge architecture to provide both detailed analysis and a concise final score based on standard medical evaluation criteria. Subsequently, a reward token-based direct preference optimization (RTDPO) strategy is incorporated to save training time without compromising performance of our model. Extensive experiments have demonstrated the effectiveness of our ACE-$M^3$ model\footnote{\url{https://huggingface.co/collections/AIUSRTMP/ace-m3-67593297ff391b93e3e5d068}} in evaluating the capabilities of medical MLLMs.

Interpretability for Table Question Answering (Table QA) is critical, particularly in high-stakes industries like finance or healthcare. Although recent approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly improved Table QA performance, their explanations for how the answers are generated are ambiguous. To fill this gap, we introduce Plan-of-SQLs ( or POS), an interpretable, effective, and efficient approach to Table QA that answers an input query solely with SQL executions. Through qualitative and quantitative evaluations with human and LLM judges, we show that POS is most preferred among explanation methods, helps human users understand model decision boundaries, and facilitates model success and error identification. Furthermore, when evaluated in standard benchmarks (TabFact, WikiTQ, and FetaQA), POS achieves competitive or superior accuracy compared to existing methods, while maintaining greater efficiency by requiring significantly fewer LLM calls and database queries.

Despite demonstrating impressive capabilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) still often struggle to accurately express the factual knowledge they possess, especially in cases where the LLMs' knowledge boundaries are ambiguous. To improve LLMs' factual expressions, we propose the UAlign framework, which leverages Uncertainty estimations to represent knowledge boundaries, and then explicitly incorporates these representations as input features into prompts for LLMs to Align with factual knowledge. First, we prepare the dataset on knowledge question-answering (QA) samples by calculating two uncertainty estimations, including confidence score and semantic entropy, to represent the knowledge boundaries for LLMs. Subsequently, using the prepared dataset, we train a reward model that incorporates uncertainty estimations and then employ the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm for factuality alignment on LLMs. Experimental results indicate that, by integrating uncertainty representations in LLM alignment, the proposed UAlign can significantly enhance the LLMs' capacities to confidently answer known questions and refuse unknown questions on both in-domain and out-of-domain tasks, showing reliability improvements and good generalizability over various prompt- and training-based baselines.

Verifying factual claims is critical for using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare. Recent work has proposed fact decomposition, which uses LLMs to rewrite source text into concise sentences conveying a single piece of information, as an approach for fine-grained fact verification. Clinical documentation poses unique challenges for fact decomposition due to dense terminology and diverse note types. To explore these challenges, we present FactEHR, a dataset consisting of full document fact decompositions for 2,168 clinical notes spanning four types from three hospital systems. Our evaluation, including review by clinicians, highlights significant variability in the quality of fact decomposition for four commonly used LLMs, with some LLMs generating 2.6x more facts per sentence than others. The results underscore the need for better LLM capabilities to support factual verification in clinical text. To facilitate future research in this direction, we plan to release our code at \url{https://github.com/som-shahlab/factehr}.

As large language models (LLMs) generate more human-like texts, concerns about the side effects of AI-generated texts (AIGT) have grown. So, researchers have developed methods for detecting AIGT. However, two challenges remain. First, the performance on detecting black-box LLMs is low, because existing models have focused on syntactic features. Second, most AIGT detectors have been tested on a single-candidate setting, which assumes that we know the origin of an AIGT and may deviate from the real-world scenario. To resolve these challenges, we propose DART, which consists of four steps: rephrasing, semantic parsing, scoring, and multiclass classification. We conducted several experiments to test the performance of DART by following previous work. The experimental result shows that DART can discriminate multiple black-box LLMs without using syntactic features and knowing the origin of AIGT.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly advanced various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the resource demands of these models pose substantial challenges. Structured pruning is an effective approach to reducing model size, but it often results in significant accuracy degradation, necessitating parameter updates to adapt. Unfortunately, such fine-tuning requires substantial memory, which limits its applicability. To address these challenges, we introduce quantization into the structured pruning framework to reduce memory consumption during both fine-tuning and inference. However, the combined errors from pruning and quantization increase the difficulty of fine-tuning, requiring a more refined quantization scheme. To this end, we propose QPruner, a novel framework that employs structured pruning to reduce model size, followed by a layer-wise mixed-precision quantization scheme. Quantization precisions are assigned to each layer based on their importance to the target task, and Bayesian optimization is employed to refine precision allocation strategies, ensuring a balance between model accuracy and memory efficiency. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that QPruner significantly outperforms existing methods in memory savings while maintaining or improving model performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in solving mathematical problems, with code-based solutions proving particularly effective. However, the best practice to leverage coding instruction data to enhance mathematical reasoning remains underexplored. This study investigates three key questions: (1) How do different coding styles of mathematical code-based rationales impact LLMs' learning performance? (2) Can general-domain coding instructions improve performance? (3) How does integrating textual rationales with code-based ones during training enhance mathematical reasoning abilities? Our findings reveal that code-based rationales with concise comments, descriptive naming, and hardcoded solutions are beneficial, while improvements from general-domain coding instructions and textual rationales are relatively minor. Based on these insights, we propose CoinMath, a learning strategy designed to enhance mathematical reasoning by diversifying the coding styles of code-based rationales. CoinMath generates a variety of code-based rationales incorporating concise comments, descriptive naming conventions, and hardcoded solutions. Experimental results demonstrate that CoinMath significantly outperforms its baseline model, MAmmoTH, one of the SOTA math LLMs.

Topic modeling is widely used for uncovering thematic structures within text corpora, yet traditional models often struggle with specificity and coherence in domain-focused applications. Guided approaches, such as SeededLDA and CorEx, incorporate user-provided seed words to improve relevance but remain labor-intensive and static. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for dynamic topic refinement and discovery, yet their application often incurs high API costs. To address these challenges, we propose the LLM-assisted Iterative Topic Augmentation framework (LITA), an LLM-assisted approach that integrates user-provided seeds with embedding-based clustering and iterative refinement. LITA identifies a small number of ambiguous documents and employs an LLM to reassign them to existing or new topics, minimizing API costs while enhancing topic quality. Experiments on two datasets across topic quality and clustering performance metrics demonstrate that LITA outperforms five baseline models, including LDA, SeededLDA, CorEx, BERTopic, and PromptTopic. Our work offers an efficient and adaptable framework for advancing topic modeling and text clustering.

In fact-checking, structure and phrasing of claims critically influence a model's ability to predict verdicts accurately. Social media content in particular rarely serves as optimal input for verification systems, which necessitates pre-processing to extract the claim from noisy context before fact checking. Prior work suggests extracting a claim representation that humans find to be checkworthy and verifiable. This has two limitations: (1) the format may not be optimal for a fact-checking model, and (2), it requires annotated data to learn the extraction task from. We address both issues and propose a method to extract claims that is not reliant on labeled training data. Instead, our self-adaptive approach only requires a black-box fact checking model and a generative language model (LM). Given a tweet, we iteratively optimize the LM to generate a claim paraphrase that increases the performance of a fact checking model. By learning from preference pairs, we align the LM to the fact checker using direct preference optimization. We show that this novel setup extracts a claim paraphrase that is more verifiable than their original social media formulations, and is on par with competitive baselines. For refuted claims, our method consistently outperforms all baselines.

Radiologists face increasing workload pressures amid growing imaging volumes, creating risks of burnout and delayed reporting times. While artificial intelligence (AI) based automated radiology report generation shows promise for reporting workflow optimization, evidence of its real-world impact on clinical accuracy and efficiency remains limited. This study evaluated the effect of draft reports on radiology reporting workflows by conducting a three reader multi-case study comparing standard versus AI-assisted reporting workflows. In both workflows, radiologists reviewed the cases and modified either a standard template (standard workflow) or an AI-generated draft report (AI-assisted workflow) to create the final report. For controlled evaluation, we used GPT-4 to generate simulated AI drafts and deliberately introduced 1-3 errors in half the cases to mimic real AI system performance. The AI-assisted workflow significantly reduced average reporting time from 573 to 435 seconds (p=0.003), without a statistically significant difference in clinically significant errors between workflows. These findings suggest that AI-generated drafts can meaningfully accelerate radiology reporting while maintaining diagnostic accuracy, offering a practical solution to address mounting workload challenges in clinical practice.