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.

Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety within current research endeavors. This study investigates an interesting issue pertaining to the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, the LLM does not have a comprehensive understanding of the complex concept of safety. Instead, it only remembers what to answer for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. Such fake alignment renders previous evaluation protocols unreliable. To address this, we introduce the Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimates. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Our work highlights potential limitations in prevailing alignment methodologies.

Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of Chinese Large Language Models

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across various regions underscores the urgent need to evaluate their alignment with human values. Current benchmarks, however, fall short of effectively uncovering safety vulnerabilities in LLMs. Despite numerous models achieving high scores and 'topping the chart' in these evaluations, there is still a significant gap in LLMs' deeper alignment with human values and achieving genuine harmlessness. To this end, this paper proposes the first highly adversarial benchmark named Flames, consisting of 2,251 manually crafted prompts, ~18.7K model responses with fine-grained annotations, and a specified scorer. Our framework encompasses both common harmlessness principles, such as fairness, safety, legality, and data protection, and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values such as harmony. Based on the framework, we carefully design adversarial prompts that incorporate complex scenarios and jailbreaking methods, mostly with implicit malice. By prompting mainstream LLMs with such adversarially constructed prompts, we obtain model responses, which are then rigorously annotated for evaluation. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames, particularly in the safety and fairness dimensions. Claude emerges as the best-performing model overall, but with its harmless rate being only 63.08% while GPT-4 only scores 39.04%. The complexity of Flames has far exceeded existing benchmarks, setting a new challenge for contemporary LLMs and highlighting the need for further alignment of LLMs. To efficiently evaluate new models on the benchmark, we develop a specified scorer capable of scoring LLMs across multiple dimensions, achieving an accuracy of 77.4%. The Flames Benchmark is publicly available on https://github.com/AIFlames/Flames.

Plug-and-Play Feature Generation for Few-Shot Medical Image Classification

Few-shot learning (FSL) presents immense potential in enhancing model generalization and practicality for medical image classification with limited training data; however, it still faces the challenge of severe overfitting in classifier training due to distribution bias caused by the scarce training samples. To address the issue, we propose MedMFG, a flexible and lightweight plug-and-play method designed to generate sufficient class-distinctive features from limited samples. Specifically, MedMFG first re-represents the limited prototypes to assign higher weights for more important information features. Then, the prototypes are variationally generated into abundant effective features. Finally, the generated features and prototypes are together to train a more generalized classifier. Experiments demonstrate that MedMFG outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods on cross-domain benchmarks involving the transition from natural images to medical images, as well as medical images with different lesions. Notably, our method achieves over 10% performance improvement compared to several baselines. Fusion experiments further validate the adaptability of MedMFG, as it seamlessly integrates into various backbones and baselines, consistently yielding improvements of over 2.9% across all results.