arXiv subjects

Zhipin Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Zhipin Wang.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ValueGround: Evaluating Culture-Conditioned Visual Value Grounding in MLLMs

Cultural values are expressed not only through language but also through visual scenes and everyday social practices. Yet existing evaluations of cultural values in language models are almost entirely text-only, leaving it unclear whether culture-conditioned judgments remain stable when response options are visualized. We introduce ValueGround, a benchmark for evaluating culture-conditioned visual value grounding in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Built from World Values Survey questions, ValueGround uses minimally contrastive image pairs to represent opposing response options while controlling irrelevant variation. Given a country, a question, and an image pair, a model must choose the image that best matches the country's value tendency without access to the original response-option texts. Experiments across six MLLMs and 13 countries show that models perform substantially worse with visualized response options than with the original textual options, with average accuracy dropping from 72.8% to 62.6%. Our benchmark provides a controlled testbed for studying cross-modal transfer of culture-conditioned value judgments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

LLLMs: A Data-Driven Survey of Evolving Research on Limitations of Large Language Models

Large language model (LLM) research has grown rapidly, along with increasing concern about their limitations. In this survey, we conduct a data-driven, semi-automated review of research on limitations of LLMs (LLLMs) from 2022 to early 2025 using a bottom-up approach. From a corpus of 250,000 ACL and arXiv papers, we identify 14,648 relevant papers using keyword filtering, LLM-based classification, validated against expert labels, and topic clustering (via two approaches, HDBSCAN+BERTopic and LlooM). We find that the share of LLM-related papers increases over fivefold in ACL and nearly eightfold in arXiv between 2022 and 2025. Since 2022, LLLMs research grows even faster, reaching over 30% of LLM papers by 2025. Reasoning remains the most studied limitation, followed by generalization, hallucination, bias, and security. The distribution of topics in the ACL dataset stays relatively stable over time, while arXiv shifts toward security risks, alignment, hallucinations, knowledge editing, and multimodality. We offer a quantitative view of trends in LLLMs research and release a dataset of annotated abstracts and a validated methodology, available at: https://github.com/a-kostikova/LLLMs-Survey.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Zhyper: Factorized Hypernetworks for Conditioned LLM Fine-Tuning

Large Language Model (LLM) conditioning refers to instructing an LLM to generate content in accordance with the norms and values of a specific culture, beliefs of a particular political orientation, or any desired text-specified semantic conditioning. Unfortunately, prompt engineering does not ensure that LLMs behave in accordance with a desired conditioning due to the inductive bias of the pre-training and alignment datasets. Prior works have focused on fine-tuning LLMs by directly conditioning the LoRA weights; however, such methods introduce a large number of parameters. As a remedy, we propose Zhyper, a parameter-efficient factorized hypernetwork framework that generates context-aware LoRA adapters from textual descriptions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Zhyper achieves competitive performance with up to 26x fewer parameters than the state-of-the-art baselines. Furthermore, we extend Zhyper to cultural alignment, demonstrating improved generalization to out-of-domain settings and a better capturing of fine-grained contextual values.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DeepSeek-R1 vs. o3-mini: How Well can Reasoning LLMs Evaluate MT and Summarization?

Reasoning-enabled large language models (LLMs) excel in logical tasks, yet their utility for evaluating natural language generation remains unexplored. This study systematically compares reasoning LLMs with non-reasoning counterparts across machine translation and text summarization evaluation tasks. We evaluate eight models spanning state-of-the-art reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI o3), their distilled variants (8B-70B parameters), and equivalent non-reasoning LLMs. Experiments on WMT23 and SummEval benchmarks reveal architecture and task-dependent benefits: OpenAI o3-mini models show improved performance with increased reasoning on MT, while DeepSeek-R1 and generally underperforms compared to its non-reasoning variant except in summarization consistency evaluation. Correlation analysis demonstrates that reasoning token usage correlates with evaluation quality only in specific models, while almost all models generally allocate more reasoning tokens when identifying more quality issues. Distillation maintains reasonable performance up to 32B parameter models but degrades substantially at 8B scale. This work provides the first assessment of reasoning LLMs for NLG evaluation and comparison to non-reasoning models. We share our code to facilitate further research: https://github.com/NL2G/reasoning-eval.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models in Alignment with Human Values

Large Language Models (LLMs) aim to serve as versatile assistants aligned with human values, as defined by the principles of being helpful, honest, and harmless (hhh). However, in terms of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), despite their commendable performance in perception and reasoning tasks, their alignment with human values remains largely unexplored, given the complexity of defining hhh dimensions in the visual world and the difficulty in collecting relevant data that accurately mirrors real-world situations. To address this gap, we introduce Ch3Ef, a Compreh3ensive Evaluation dataset and strategy for assessing alignment with human expectations. Ch3Ef dataset contains 1002 human-annotated data samples, covering 12 domains and 46 tasks based on the hhh principle. We also present a unified evaluation strategy supporting assessment across various scenarios and different perspectives. Based on the evaluation results, we summarize over 10 key findings that deepen the understanding of MLLM capabilities, limitations, and the dynamic relationships between evaluation levels, guiding future advancements in the field.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

From GPT-4 to Gemini and Beyond: Assessing the Landscape of MLLMs on Generalizability, Trustworthiness and Causality through Four Modalities

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown impressive abilities in generating reasonable responses with respect to multi-modal contents. However, there is still a wide gap between the performance of recent MLLM-based applications and the expectation of the broad public, even though the most powerful OpenAI's GPT-4 and Google's Gemini have been deployed. This paper strives to enhance understanding of the gap through the lens of a qualitative study on the generalizability, trustworthiness, and causal reasoning capabilities of recent proprietary and open-source MLLMs across four modalities: ie, text, code, image, and video, ultimately aiming to improve the transparency of MLLMs. We believe these properties are several representative factors that define the reliability of MLLMs, in supporting various downstream applications. To be specific, we evaluate the closed-source GPT-4 and Gemini and 6 open-source LLMs and MLLMs. Overall we evaluate 230 manually designed cases, where the qualitative results are then summarized into 12 scores (ie, 4 modalities times 3 properties). In total, we uncover 14 empirical findings that are useful to understand the capabilities and limitations of both proprietary and open-source MLLMs, towards more reliable downstream multi-modal applications.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

ChEF: A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Standardized Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown impressive abilities in interacting with visual content with myriad potential downstream tasks. However, even though a list of benchmarks has been proposed, the capabilities and limitations of MLLMs are still not comprehensively understood, due to a lack of a standardized and holistic evaluation framework. To this end, we present the first Comprehensive Evaluation Framework (ChEF) that can holistically profile each MLLM and fairly compare different MLLMs. First, we structure ChEF as four modular components, i.e., Scenario as scalable multimodal datasets, Instruction as flexible instruction retrieving formulae, Inferencer as reliable question answering strategies, and Metric as indicative task-specific score functions. Based on them, ChEF facilitates versatile evaluations in a standardized framework, and new evaluations can be built by designing new Recipes (systematic selection of these four components). Notably, current MLLM benchmarks can be readily summarized as recipes of ChEF. Second, we introduce 6 new recipes to quantify competent MLLMs' desired capabilities (or called desiderata, i.e., calibration, in-context learning, instruction following, language performance, hallucination, and robustness) as reliable agents that can perform real-world multimodal interactions. Third, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 9 prominent MLLMs on 9 scenarios and 6 desiderata. Our evaluation summarized over 20 valuable observations concerning the generalizability of MLLMs across various scenarios and the composite capability of MLLMs required for multimodal interactions. We will publicly release all the detailed implementations for further analysis, as well as an easy-to-use modular toolkit for the integration of new recipes and models, so that ChEF can be a growing evaluation framework for the MLLM community.

cs.CV↗