We introduce MAIA (Multimodal AI Assessment), a native-Italian benchmark designed for fine-grained investigation of the reasoning abilities of visual language models on videos. MAIA differs from other available video benchmarks for its design, its reasoning categories, the metric it uses and the language and culture of the videos. It evaluates Vision Language Models (VLMs) on two aligned tasks: a visual statement verification task, and an open-ended visual question-answering task, both on the same set of video-related questions. It considers twelve reasoning categories that aim to disentangle language and vision relations by highlight when one of two alone encodes sufficient information to solve the tasks, when they are both needed and when the full richness of the short video is essential instead of just a part of it. Thanks to its carefully taught design, it evaluates VLMs' consistency and visually grounded natural language comprehension and generation simultaneously through an aggregated metric. Last but not least, the video collection has been carefully selected to reflect the Italian culture and the language data are produced by native-speakers.

We examine three evaluation paradigms: large question-answering benchmarks (e.g., MMLU and BBH), interactive games (e.g., Signalling Games or Taboo), and cognitive tests (e.g., for working memory or theory of mind). First, we investigate which of the former two-benchmarks or games-is most effective at discriminating LLMs of varying quality. Then, inspired by human cognitive assessments, we compile a suite of targeted tests that measure cognitive abilities deemed essential for effective language use, and we investigate their correlation with model performance in benchmarks and games. Our analyses reveal that interactive games are superior to standard benchmarks in discriminating models. Causal and logical reasoning correlate with both static and interactive tests, while differences emerge regarding core executive functions and social/emotional skills, which correlate more with games. We advocate the development of new interactive benchmarks and targeted cognitive tasks inspired by assessing human abilities but designed specifically for LLMs.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to validate their output and identify potential errors is crucial for ensuring robustness and reliability. However, current research indicates that LLMs struggle with self-correction, encountering significant challenges in detecting errors. While studies have explored methods to enhance self-correction in LLMs, relatively little attention has been given to understanding the models' internal mechanisms underlying error detection. In this paper, we present a mechanistic analysis of error detection in LLMs, focusing on simple arithmetic problems. Through circuit analysis, we identify the computational subgraphs responsible for detecting arithmetic errors across four smaller-sized LLMs. Our findings reveal that all models heavily rely on $\textit{consistency heads}$--attention heads that assess surface-level alignment of numerical values in arithmetic solutions. Moreover, we observe that the models' internal arithmetic computation primarily occurs in higher layers, whereas validation takes place in middle layers, before the final arithmetic results are fully encoded. This structural dissociation between arithmetic computation and validation seems to explain why current LLMs struggle to detect even simple arithmetic errors.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

Questions are essential tools for acquiring the necessary information to complete information-seeking tasks. However, large language models (LLMs), especially open-source models, often perform poorly in generating informative questions, as measured by expected information gain (EIG). In this paper, we propose a method to enhance the informativeness of LLM-generated questions in 20-question game dialogues. We sample multiple questions from the same model (LLAMA 2-CHAT 7B) for each game and create pairs of low-EIG and high-EIG questions to apply a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) algorithm. Our results show that this method produces more effective questions (in terms of EIG), even in domains different from those used to train the DPO model.

The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $\textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that $\textit{no conclusion follows}$, display human-like difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge, as well as ones with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter mitigates most reasoning biases without harming model consistency.

The present work investigates whether different quantification mechanisms (set comparison, vague quantification, and proportional estimation) can be jointly learned from visual scenes by a multi-task computational model. The motivation is that, in humans, these processes underlie the same cognitive, non-symbolic ability, which allows an automatic estimation and comparison of set magnitudes. We show that when information about lower-complexity tasks is available, the higher-level proportional task becomes more accurate than when performed in isolation. Moreover, the multi-task model is able to generalize to unseen combinations of target/non-target objects. Consistently with behavioral evidence showing the interference of absolute number in the proportional task, the multi-task model no longer works when asked to provide the number of target objects in the scene.

Automatic description generation from natural images is a challenging problem that has recently received a large amount of interest from the computer vision and natural language processing communities. In this survey, we classify the existing approaches based on how they conceptualize this problem, viz., models that cast description as either generation problem or as a retrieval problem over a visual or multimodal representational space. We provide a detailed review of existing models, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, we give an overview of the benchmark image datasets and the evaluation measures that have been developed to assess the quality of machine-generated image descriptions.