SPARTA ALIGNMENT: Collectively Aligning Multiple Language Models through Combat

We propose SPARTA ALIGNMENT, an algorithm to collectively align multiple LLMs through competition and combat. To complement a single model's lack of diversity in generation and biases in evaluation, multiple LLMs form a "sparta tribe" to compete against each other in fulfilling instructions while serving as judges for the competition of others. For each iteration, one instruction and two models are selected for a duel, the other models evaluate the two responses, and their evaluation scores are aggregated through a adapted elo-ranking based reputation system, where winners/losers of combat gain/lose weight in evaluating others. The peer-evaluated combat results then become preference pairs where the winning response is preferred over the losing one, and all models learn from these preferences at the end of each iteration. SPARTA ALIGNMENT enables the self-evolution of multiple LLMs in an iterative and collective competition process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SPARTA ALIGNMENT outperforms initial models and 4 self-alignment baselines across 10 out of 12 tasks and datasets with 7.0% average improvement. Further analysis reveals that SPARTA ALIGNMENT generalizes more effectively to unseen tasks and leverages the expertise diversity of participating models to produce more logical, direct and informative outputs.

ChartMuseum: Testing Visual Reasoning Capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models

Chart understanding presents a unique challenge for large vision-language models (LVLMs), as it requires the integration of sophisticated textual and visual reasoning capabilities. However, current LVLMs exhibit a notable imbalance between these skills, falling short on visual reasoning that is difficult to perform in text. We conduct a case study using a synthetic dataset solvable only through visual reasoning and show that model performance degrades significantly with increasing visual complexity, while human performance remains robust. We then introduce ChartMuseum, a new Chart Question Answering (QA) benchmark containing 1,162 expert-annotated questions spanning multiple reasoning types, curated from real-world charts across 184 sources, specifically built to evaluate complex visual and textual reasoning. Unlike prior chart understanding benchmarks -- where frontier models perform similarly and near saturation -- our benchmark exposes a substantial gap between model and human performance, while effectively differentiating model capabilities: although humans achieve 93% accuracy, the best-performing model Gemini-2.5-Pro attains only 63.0%, and the leading open-source LVLM Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct achieves only 38.5%. Moreover, on questions requiring primarily visual reasoning, all models experience a 35%-55% performance drop from text-reasoning-heavy question performance. Lastly, our qualitative error analysis reveals specific categories of visual reasoning that are challenging for current LVLMs.

RankAlign: A Ranking View of the Generator-Validator Gap in Large Language Models

Although large language models (LLMs) have become generally more capable and accurate across many tasks, some fundamental sources of unreliability remain in their behavior. One key limitation is their inconsistency at reporting the the same information when prompts are changed. In this paper, we consider the discrepancy between a model's generated answer and their own verification of that answer, the generator-validator gap. We define this gap in a more stringent way than prior work: we expect correlation of scores from a generator and a validator over the entire set of candidate answers. We show that according to this measure, a large gap exists in various settings, including question answering, lexical semantics tasks, and next-word prediction. We then propose RankAlign, a ranking-based training method, and show that it significantly closes the gap by 31.8% on average, surpassing all baseline methods. Moreover, this approach generalizes well to out-of-domain tasks and lexical items.

When One LLM Drools, Multi-LLM Collaboration Rules

This position paper argues that in many realistic (i.e., complex, contextualized, subjective) scenarios, one LLM is not enough to produce a reliable output. We challenge the status quo of relying solely on a single general-purpose LLM and argue for multi-LLM collaboration to better represent the extensive diversity of data, skills, and people. We first posit that a single LLM underrepresents real-world data distributions, heterogeneous skills, and pluralistic populations, and that such representation gaps cannot be trivially patched by further training a single LLM. We then organize existing multi-LLM collaboration methods into a hierarchy, based on the level of access and information exchange, ranging from API-level, text-level, logit-level, to weight-level collaboration. Based on these methods, we highlight how multi-LLM collaboration addresses challenges that a single LLM struggles with, such as reliability, democratization, and pluralism. Finally, we identify the limitations of existing multi-LLM methods and motivate future work. We envision multi-LLM collaboration as an essential path toward compositional intelligence and collaborative AI development.

Varying Shades of Wrong: Aligning LLMs with Wrong Answers Only

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while overall improving model calibration.

Teaching LLMs to Abstain across Languages via Multilingual Feedback

Multilingual LLMs often have knowledge disparities across languages, with larger gaps in under-resourced languages. Teaching LLMs to abstain in the face of knowledge gaps is thus a promising strategy to mitigate hallucinations in multilingual settings. However, previous studies on LLM abstention primarily focus on English; we find that directly applying existing solutions beyond English results in up to 20.5% performance gaps between high and low-resource languages, potentially due to LLMs' drop in calibration and reasoning beyond a few resource-rich languages. To this end, we propose strategies to enhance LLM abstention by learning from multilingual feedback, where LLMs self-reflect on proposed answers in one language by generating multiple feedback items in related languages: we show that this helps identifying the knowledge gaps across diverse languages, cultures, and communities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our multilingual feedback approach outperforms various strong baselines, achieving up to 9.2% improvement for low-resource languages across three black-box and open models on three datasets, featuring open-book, closed-book, and commonsense QA. Further analysis reveals that multilingual feedback is both an effective and a more equitable abstain strategy to serve diverse language speakers, and cultural factors have great impact on language selection and LLM abstention behavior, highlighting future directions for multilingual and multi-cultural reliable language modeling.

On the Role of Entity and Event Level Conceptualization in Generalizable Reasoning: A Survey of Tasks, Methods, Applications, and Future Directions

Entity- and event-level conceptualization, as fundamental elements of human cognition, plays a pivotal role in generalizable reasoning. This process involves abstracting specific instances into higher-level concepts and forming abstract knowledge that can be applied in unfamiliar or novel situations, which can enhance models' inferential capabilities and support the effective transfer of knowledge across various domains. Despite its significance, there is currently a lack of a systematic overview that comprehensively examines existing works in the definition, execution, and application of conceptualization to enhance reasoning tasks. In this paper, we address this gap by presenting the first comprehensive survey of 150+ papers, categorizing various definitions, resources, methods, and downstream applications related to conceptualization into a unified taxonomy, with a focus on the entity and event levels. Furthermore, we shed light on potential future directions in this field and hope to garner more attention from the community.

MIND: Multimodal Shopping Intention Distillation from Large Vision-language Models for E-commerce Purchase Understanding

Improving user experience and providing personalized search results in E-commerce platforms heavily rely on understanding purchase intention. However, existing methods for acquiring large-scale intentions bank on distilling large language models with human annotation for verification. Such an approach tends to generate product-centric intentions, overlook valuable visual information from product images, and incurs high costs for scalability. To address these issues, we introduce MIND, a multimodal framework that allows Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to infer purchase intentions from multimodal product metadata and prioritize human-centric ones. Using Amazon Review data, we apply MIND and create a multimodal intention knowledge base, which contains 1,264,441 million intentions derived from 126,142 co-buy shopping records across 107,215 products. Extensive human evaluations demonstrate the high plausibility and typicality of our obtained intentions and validate the effectiveness of our distillation framework and filtering mechanism. Additional experiments reveal that our obtained intentions significantly enhance large language models in two intention comprehension tasks.

IntentionQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Purchase Intention Comprehension Abilities of Language Models in E-commerce

Enhancing Language Models' (LMs) ability to understand purchase intentions in E-commerce scenarios is crucial for their effective assistance in various downstream tasks. However, previous approaches that distill intentions from LMs often fail to generate meaningful and human-centric intentions applicable in real-world E-commerce contexts. This raises concerns about the true comprehension and utilization of purchase intentions by LMs. In this paper, we present IntentionQA, a double-task multiple-choice question answering benchmark to evaluate LMs' comprehension of purchase intentions in E-commerce. Specifically, LMs are tasked to infer intentions based on purchased products and utilize them to predict additional purchases. IntentionQA consists of 4,360 carefully curated problems across three difficulty levels, constructed using an automated pipeline to ensure scalability on large E-commerce platforms. Human evaluations demonstrate the high quality and low false-negative rate of our benchmark. Extensive experiments across 19 language models show that they still struggle with certain scenarios, such as understanding products and intentions accurately, jointly reasoning with products and intentions, and more, in which they fall far behind human performances. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/IntentionQA.

Don't Hallucinate, Abstain: Identifying LLM Knowledge Gaps via Multi-LLM Collaboration

Despite efforts to expand the knowledge of large language models (LLMs), knowledge gaps -- missing or outdated information in LLMs -- might always persist given the evolving nature of knowledge. In this work, we study approaches to identify LLM knowledge gaps and abstain from answering questions when knowledge gaps are present. We first adapt existing approaches to model calibration or adaptation through fine-tuning/prompting and analyze their ability to abstain from generating low-confidence outputs. Motivated by their failures in self-reflection and over-reliance on held-out sets, we propose two novel approaches that are based on model collaboration, i.e., LLMs probing other LLMs for knowledge gaps, either cooperatively or competitively. Extensive experiments with three LLMs on four QA tasks featuring diverse knowledge domains demonstrate that both cooperative and competitive approaches to unveiling LLM knowledge gaps achieve up to 19.3% improvements on abstain accuracy against the strongest baseline. Further analysis reveals that our proposed mechanisms could help identify failure cases in retrieval augmentation and pinpoint knowledge gaps in multi-hop reasoning.