United States

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.

NAACL 2025

MMEvalPro: Calibrating Multimodal Benchmarks Towards Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation

better evaluation

large multimodal models

benchmark

### Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Welcome to the 2025 meeting of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics! I am proud to help organize the first NAACL conference to carry the new name of our organization, one that emphasizes inclusion for all of the Americas. I am also pleased to welcome you to Albuquerque, New Mexico, a state whose unique blend of cultural influences will make for an excellent backdrop for NAACL 2025, especially with this year’s special theme on NLP in a Multicultural World. 
**[Continue reading...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jX-qGhqVSZZCIrAnJaz798pflu5Irrdn/view?usp=sharing)**

*- Colin Cherry, Google, NAACL 2025 General Chair* 

[![](https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/b087f8a4dc5816d6e1a6514e59c59ac3.png)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T96GzPqObXrMln2BMByCSXTSizjTg69P/view?usp=sharing)

You need to log in with the email address you registered with. Access credentials have been sent to your email. 

Please be sure to check your spam and other email folders if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in to explore this event.

To access NAACL 2025 event page you are required to register. Please follow [**this link**](https://2025.naacl.org/registration/registration/) to register. Access will depend on your registration type.

Please register!

Welcome to 2025 Annual Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

poster

Maybe not. We identify and analyse errors in the popular Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark. Even though MMLU is widely adopted, our analysis demonstrates numerous ground truth errors that obscure the true capabilities of LLMs. For example, we find that 57% of the analysed questions in the Virology subset contain errors. To address this issue, we introduce a comprehensive framework for identifying dataset errors using a novel error annotation protocol. Then, we create MMLU-Redux, which is a subset of 5,700 manually re-annotated questions across all 57 MMLU subjects. Using MMLU-Redux, we demonstrate significant discrepancies with the model performance metrics that were originally reported. Our results strongly advocate for revising MMLU’s error-ridden questions to enhance its future utility and reliability as a benchmark. Therefore, we open up MMLU-Redux for additional annotation.

Are We Done with MMLU?

Computational argumentation, which involves generating answers or summaries for controversial topics like abortion bans and vaccination, has become increasingly important in today's polarized environment. Sophisticated LLM capabilities offer the potential to provide nuanced, evidence-based answers to such questions through Retrieval-Augmented Argumentation (RAArg), leveraging real-world evidence for high-quality, grounded arguments. However, evaluating RAArg remains challenging, as human evaluation is costly and difficult for complex, lengthy answers on complicated topics. At the same time, re-using existing argumentation datasets is no longer sufficient, as they lack long, complex arguments and realistic evidence from potentially misleading sources, limiting holistic evaluation of retrieval effectiveness and argument quality. To address these gaps, we investigate automated evaluation methods using multiple fine-grained LLM judges, providing better and more interpretable assessments than traditional single-score metrics and even previously reported human crowdsourcing. To validate the proposed techniques, we introduce ConQRet, a new benchmark featuring long and complex human-authored arguments on debated topics, grounded in real-world websites, allowing an exhaustive evaluation across retrieval effectiveness, argument quality, and groundedness. We validate our LLM Judges on a prior dataset and the new ConQRet benchmark. Our proposed LLM Judges and the ConQRet benchmark can enable rapid progress in computational argumentation and can be naturally extended to other complex retrieval-augmented generation tasks.

ConQRet: A New Benchmark for Fine-Grained Automatic Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Computational Argumentation

To deploy language models safely, it is crucial that they abstain from responding to inappropriate requests. Several prior studies test the safety promises of models based on their effectiveness in blocking malicious requests. In this work, we focus on evaluating the underlying techniques that cause models to abstain. We create `SELECT`, a benchmark derived from a set of benign concepts (e.g., ''rivers'') from a knowledge graph. Focusing on benign concepts isolates the effect of safety training, and grounding these concepts in a knowledge graph allows us to study the *generalization* and *specificity* of abstention techniques. Using `SELECT`, we benchmark different abstention techniques over six open-weight and closed-source models. We find that the examined techniques indeed cause models to abstain with over 80% abstention rates. However, these techniques are not as effective for descendants of the target concepts, where abstention rates drop by 19%. We also characterize the generalization-specificity trade-offs for different techniques. Overall, no single technique is invariably better than others, and our findings inform practitioners of the various trade-offs involved.

Knowledge Graph Guided Evaluation of Abstention Techniques

Templatic memes, characterized by a semantic structure adaptable to the creator's intent, represent a significant yet underexplored area within meme processing literature. With the goal of establishing a new direction for computational meme analysis, here we create a knowledge base composed of more than 5,200 meme templates, information about them, and 54,000 examples of template instances (templatic memes). To investigate the semantic signal of meme templates, we show that we can match memes in datasets to base templates contained in our knowledge base with a distance-based lookup. To demonstrate the power of meme templates, we create TSplit, a method to reorganize datasets, where a template or templatic instance can only appear in either the training or test split. Our re-split datasets enhance general meme knowledge and improve sample efficiency, leading to more robust models. Our examination of meme templates results in state-of-the-art performance for every dataset we consider, paving the way for analysis grounded in templateness.

A Template Is All You Meme

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our evaluation reveals key findings: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness depends on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for over 500 LLM-evaluators, laying groundwork for future research in instruction-following evaluation.

ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with precise length control, particularly in zero-shot settings. We conduct a comprehensive study evaluating LLMs' length control capabilities across multiple measures and propose practical methods to improve controllability. Our experiments with LLaMA 3 reveal stark differences in length adherence across measures and highlight inherent biases of the model. To address these challenges, we introduce a set of methods: length approximation, target adjustment, sample filtering, and automated revisions. By combining these methods, we demonstrate substantial improvements in length compliance while maintaining or enhancing summary quality, providing highly effective zero-shot strategies for precise length control without the need for model fine-tuning or architectural changes. With our work, we not only advance our understanding of LLM behavior in controlled text generation but also pave the way for more reliable and adaptable summarization systems in real-world applications.

Zero-Shot Strategies for Length-Controllable Summarization

Successful teamwork requires team members to understand each other and communicate effectively, managing multiple linguistic and paralinguistic tasks at once. Because of the potential for interrelatedness of these tasks, it is important to have the ability to make multiple types of predictions on the same dataset. Here, we introduce Multimodal Communication Annotations for Teams (MultiCAT), a speech- and text-based dataset consisting of audio recordings, automated and hand-corrected transcriptions. MultiCAT builds upon data from teams working collaboratively to save victims in a simulated search and rescue mission, and consists of annotations and benchmark results for the following tasks: (1) dialog act classification, (2) adjacency pair detection, (3) sentiment and emotion recognition, (4) closed-loop communication detection, and (5) vocal (phonetic) entrainment detection. We also present exploratory analyses on the relationship between our annotations and team outcomes. We posit that additional work on these tasks and their intersection will further improve understanding of team communication and its relation to team performance. Code & data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14834835

MultiCAT: Multimodal Communication Annotations for Teams

Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate RMs trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.

RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling

Open domain question answering systems frequently rely on information retrieved from large collections of text (such as the Web) to answer questions. However, such collections of text often contain conflicting information, and indiscriminately depending on this information may result in untruthful and inaccurate answers. To understand the gravity of this problem, we collect a human-annotated dataset, Question Answering with Conflicting Contexts (QACC), and find that as much as 25% of unambiguous, open domain questions can lead to conflicting contexts when retrieved using Google Search. We evaluate and benchmark three powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) with our dataset QACC and demonstrate their limitations in effectively addressing questions with conflicting information. To explore how humans reason through conflicting contexts, we request our annotators to provide explanations for their selections of correct answers. We demonstrate that by finetuning LLMs to explain their answers, we can introduce richer information into their training that guide them through the process of reasoning with conflicting contexts. We publicly release our dataset and code to promote research along this line.

Open Domain Question Answering with Conflicting Contexts

GPT-4's purported strong multimodal abilities raise interests in using it to automate radiology report writing, but there lacks thorough evaluations. In this work, we perform a systematic evaluation of GPT-4 (4o and vision-preview) in generating radiology reports across three chest X-ray report benchmarks: MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert Plus, and IU X-Ray. We attempt to directly generate reports with different prompting strategies and find that the models fail terribly in both lexical metrics and clinical efficacy metrics. To understand the low performance, we decompose the task into two steps: 1) the **medical image reasoning** step of predicting medical condition labels from images; and 2) the **report synthesis** step of generating reports from (groundtruth) conditions. We show that GPT-4's performance in image reasoning is consistently low across different prompts. In fact, the distributions of model-predicted labels remain constant regardless of which groundtruth conditions are present on the image, suggesting that the model is not interpreting chest X-rays meaningfully. Even when given groundtruth conditions in report synthesis, its generated reports are less correct and less natural-sounding than a finetuned Llama. Altogether, our findings cast doubt on the viability of using GPT-4 in a radiology workflow.

Downloads

Next from NAACL 2025

Are We Done with MMLU?

Similar lecture

CAMEL-Bench: A Comprehensive Arabic LMM Benchmark