Encoder-free multimodal large language models(MLLMs) eliminate the need for a well-trained vision encoder by directly processing image tokens before the language model. While this approach reduces computational overhead and model complexity, it often requires large amounts of training data to effectively capture the visual knowledge typically encoded by vision models like CLIP. The absence of a vision encoder implies that the model is likely to rely on substantial data to learn the necessary visual-semantic alignments. In this work, we present BREEN, a data-efficient encoder-free multimodal architecture that mitigates this issue. BREEN leverages a learnable query and image experts to achieve comparable performance with significantly less training data. The learnable query, positioned between image and text tokens, is supervised by the output of a pretrained CLIP model to distill visual knowledge, bridging the gap between visual and textual modalities. Additionally, the image expert processes image tokens and learnable queries independently, improving efficiency and reducing interference with the LLM's textual capabilities. BREEN achieves comparable performance to prior encoder-free state-of-the-art models like Mono-InternVL, using only 13 million text-image pairs in training about one percent of the data required by existing methods. Our work highlights a promising direction for data-efficient encoder-free multimodal learning, offering an alternative to traditional encoder-based approaches.

Large language model (LLM) evaluations typically rely on aggregated metrics like accuracy or human preference, averaging across users and prompts. This averaging obscures user- and prompt-specific variations in model performance. To address this, we propose Prompt-to-Leaderboard (P2L), a method that produces leaderboards specific to a prompt. The core idea is to train an LLM taking natural language prompts as input to output a vector of Bradley-Terry coefficients which are then used to predict the human preference vote. The resulting prompt-dependent leaderboards allow for unsupervised task-specific evaluation, optimal routing of queries to models, personalization, and automated evaluation of model strengths and weaknesses. Data from Chatbot Arena suggest that P2L better captures the nuanced landscape of language model performance than the averaged leaderboard. Furthermore, our findings suggest that P2L's ability to produce prompt-specific evaluations follows a power law scaling similar to that observed in LLMs themselves. In January 2025, the router we trained based on this methodology achieved the #1 spot on the Chatbot Arena leaderboard. Our code is available on GitHub at https://github.com/lmarena/p2l.

Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated powerful in-context learning capabilities. However, their predictions can be disrupted by factually correct context, a phenomenon known as context hijacking, revealing a significant robustness issue. To understand this phenomenon theoretically, we explore an in-context linear classification problem based on recent advances in linear transformers. In our setup, context tokens are designed as factually correct query-answer pairs, where the queries are similar to the final query but have opposite labels. Then, we develop a general theoretical analysis on the robustness of the linear transformers, which is formulated as a function of the model depth, training context lengths, and number of hijacking context tokens. A key finding is that a well-trained deeper transformer can achieve higher robustness, which aligns with empirical observations. We show that this improvement arises because deeper layers enable more fine-grained optimization steps, effectively mitigating interference from context hijacking. This is also well supported by our numerical experiments. Our findings provide theoretical insights into the benefits of deeper architectures and contribute to enhancing the understanding of transformer architectures.

There exists an extremely wide array of LLM benchmarking tasks, whereas oftentimes a single number is the most actionable for decision-making, especially by non-experts. No such aggregation schema exists that is not Elo-based, which could be costly or time-consuming. Here we propose a method to aggregate performance across a general space of benchmarks, nicknamed Project "MPG," dubbed Model Performance and Goodness, additionally referencing a metric widely understood to be an important yet inaccurate and crude measure of car performance. Here, we create two numbers: a "Goodness" number (answer accuracy) and a "Fastness" number (cost or QPS). We compare models against each other and present a ranking according to our general metric as well as subdomains. We find significant agreement between the raw Pearson correlation of our scores and those of Chatbot Arena, even improving on the correlation of the MMLU leaderboard to Chatbot Arena.

We introduce a new benchmark for reward models that quantifies their ability to produce strong language models through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). The gold-standard approach is to run a full RLHF training pipeline and directly probe downstream LLM performance. However, this process is prohibitively expensive. To address this, we build a predictive model of downstream LLM performance by evaluating the reward model on proxy tasks. These proxy tasks consist of a large-scale human preference and a verifiable correctness preference dataset, in which we measure 12 metrics across 12 domains. To investigate which reward model metrics are most correlated to gold-standard RLHF outcomes, we launch an end-to-end RLHF experiment on a large-scale crowdsourced human preference platform to view real reward model downstream performance as ground truth. The ultimate test of a reward model is as follows: Does the reward model lead to good post-RLHF language model performance? In other words, because the reward model will be used as a reference signal for LLM training, in principle, only the downstream LLM performance matters. However, to evaluate downstream performance, we must train a new LLM using the reward model and evaluate the resulting LLM--a prohibitively expensive and time-consuming process (Figure 1). The long development-feedback cycle of reward models poses a significant challenge, limiting achievable reward model quality and, consequently, limiting the effectiveness of the entire RLHF process. Reward models feed into the very beginning of the RLHF pipeline, making iterative improvements prohibitively slow. PPE enables a fast feedback loop that is correlated to downstream outcomes. This paper introduces a cost-effective method for approximating the effect of a reward model on downstream LLM performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable performance in general tasks across various fields. However, their effectiveness within specific domains such as drug development remains challenges. To solve these challenges, we introduce \textbf{Y-Mol}, forming a well-established LLM paradigm for the flow of drug development. Y-Mol is a multiscale biomedical knowledge-guided LLM designed to accomplish tasks across lead compound discovery, pre-clinic, and clinic prediction. By integrating millions of multiscale biomedical knowledge and using LLaMA2 as the base LLM, Y-Mol augments the reasoning capability in the biomedical domain by learning from a corpus of publications, knowledge graphs, and expert-designed synthetic data. The capability is further enriched with three types of drug-oriented instructions: description-based prompts from processed publications, semantic-based prompts for extracting associations from knowledge graphs, and template-based prompts for understanding expert knowledge from biomedical tools. Besides, Y-Mol offers a set of LLM paradigms that can autonomously execute the downstream tasks across the entire process of drug development, including virtual screening, drug design, pharmacological properties prediction, and drug-related interaction prediction. Our extensive evaluations of various biomedical sources demonstrate that Y-Mol significantly outperforms general-purpose LLMs in discovering lead compounds, predicting molecular properties, and identifying drug interaction events.

In the age of large-scale language models, benchmarks like the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) have been pivotal in pushing the boundaries of what AI can achieve in language comprehension and reasoning across diverse domains. However, as models continue to improve, their performance on these benchmarks has begun to plateau, making it increasingly difficult to discern differences in model capabilities. This paper introduces MMLU-Pro, an enhanced dataset designed to extend the mostly knowledge-driven MMLU benchmark by integrating more challenging, reasoning-focused questions and expanding the choice set from four to ten options. Additionally, MMLU-Pro eliminates the trivial and noisy questions in MMLU. Our experimental results show that MMLU-Pro not only raises the challenge, causing a significant drop in accuracy by 16% to 33% compared to MMLU but also demonstrates greater stability under varying prompts. With 24 different prompt styles tested, the sensitivity of model scores to prompt variations decreased from 4-5% in MMLU to just 2% in MMLU-Pro. Additionally, we found that models utilizing Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning achieved better performance on MMLU-Pro compared to direct answering, which is in stark contrast to the findings on the original MMLU, indicating that MMLU-Pro includes more complex reasoning questions. Our assessments confirm that MMLU-Pro is a more discriminative benchmark to better track progress in the field. Figure 1: Comparing between MMLU and MMLU-Pro: (Left) Performance gap; (Center) Accuracy distributions affected by 24 prompts, with taller and thinner profiles indicating more stability and shorter and wider profiles indicating greater fluctuations; (Right) Performance using CoT vs. Direct.

The rapid evolution of language models has necessitated the development of more challenging benchmarks. Current static benchmarks often struggle to consistently distinguish between the capabilities of different models and fail to align with real-world user preferences. On the other hand, live crowd-sourced platforms like the Chatbot Arena collect a wide range of natural prompts and user feedback. However, these prompts vary in sophistication and the feedback cannot be applied offline to new models. In order to ensure that benchmarks keep up with the pace of LLM development, we address how one can evaluate benchmarks on their ability to confidently separate models and their alignment with human preference. Under these principles, we developed BenchBuilder, a living benchmark that filters high-quality prompts from live data sources to enable offline evaluation on fresh, challenging prompts. BenchBuilder identifies seven indicators of a high-quality prompt, such as the requirement for domain knowledge, and utilizes an LLM annotator to select a high-quality subset of prompts from various topic clusters. The LLM evaluation process employs an LLM judge to ensure a fully automated, high-quality, and constantly updating benchmark. We apply BenchBuilder on prompts from the Chatbot Arena to create Arena-Hard-Auto v0.1: 500 challenging user prompts from a wide range of tasks. Arena-Hard-Auto v0.1 offers 3x tighter confidence intervals than MT-Bench and achieves a state-of-the-art 89.1% agreement with human preference rankings, all at a cost of only $25 and without human labelers. The BenchBuilder pipeline enhances evaluation benchmarks and provides a valuable tool for developers, enabling them to extract high-quality benchmarks from extensive data with minimal effort.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in handling long sequences. Some models like Gemini could even to be capable of dealing with millions of tokens. However, their performance evaluation has largely been confined to metrics like perplexity and synthetic tasks, which may not fully capture their true abilities in more challenging, real-world scenarios. We introduce a benchmark (LongICLBench) for long in-context learning in extreme-label classification using six datasets with 28 to 174 classes and input lengths from 2K to 50K tokens. Our benchmark requires LLMs to comprehend the entire input to recognize the massive label spaces to make correct predictions. We evaluate on 15 long-context LLMs and find that they perform well on less challenging classification tasks with smaller label space and shorter demonstrations. However, they struggle with more challenging task like Discovery with 174 labels, suggesting a gap in their ability to process long, context-rich sequences. Further analysis reveals a bias towards labels presented later in the sequence and a need for improved reasoning over multiple pieces of information. Our study reveals that long context understanding and reasoning is still a challenging task for the existing LLMs. We believe LongICLBench could serve as a more realistic evaluation for the future long-context LLMs.

Generative AI has made remarkable strides to revolutionize fields such as image and video generation. These advancements are driven by innovative algorithms, architecture, and data. However, the rapid proliferation of generative models has highlighted a critical gap: the absence of trustworthy evaluation metrics. Current automatic assessments such as FID, CLIP, FVD, etc often fail to capture the nuanced quality and user satisfaction associated with generative outputs. This paper proposes an open platform GenAI-Arena to evaluate different image and video generative models, where users can actively participate in evaluating these models. By leveraging collective user feedback and votes, GenAI-Arena aims to provide a more democratic and accurate measure of model performance. It covers three arenas for text-to-image generation, text-to-video generation, and image editing respectively. Currently, we cover a total of 27 open-source generative models. GenAI-Arena has been operating for four months, amassing over 6000 votes from the community. We describe our platform, analyze the data, and explain the statistical methods for ranking the models. To further promote the research in building model-based evaluation metrics, we release a cleaned version of our preference data for the three tasks, namely GenAI-Bench. We prompt the existing multi-modal models like Gemini, GPT-4o to mimic human voting. We compute the correlation between model voting with human voting to understand their judging abilities. Our results show existing multimodal models are still lagging in assessing the generated visual content, even the best model GPT-4o only achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.22 in the quality subscore, and behaves like random guessing in others.