Model editing aims to correct inaccurate knowledge, update outdated information, and incorporate new data into Large Language Models (LLMs) without the need for retraining. This task poses challenges in lifelong scenarios where edits must be continuously applied for real-world applications. While some editors demonstrate strong robustness for lifelong editing in pure LLMs, Vision LLMs (VLLMs), which incorporate an additional vision modality, are not directly adaptable to existing LLM editors. In this paper, we propose LiveEdit, a Lifelong vision language model Edit to bridge the gap between lifelong LLM editing and VLLMs. We begin by training an editing expert generator to independently produce low-rank experts for each editing instance, with the goal of correcting the relevant responses of the VLLM. A hard filtering mechanism is developed to utilize visual semantic knowledge, thereby coarsely eliminating visually irrelevant experts for input queries during the inference stage of the post-edited model. Finally, to integrate visually relevant experts, we introduce a soft routing mechanism based on textual semantic relevance to achieve multi-expert fusion. For evaluation, we establish a benchmark for lifelong VLLM editing. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LiveEdit offers significant advantages in lifelong VLLM editing scenarios. Further experiments validate the rationality and effectiveness of each module design in LiveEdit.1

Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) due to their simplicity and efficiency. However, there are concerns about whether MCQs can truly measure LLM’s capabilities, particularly in knowledge-intensive scenarios where long-form generation (LFG) answers are required. The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ’s efficacy, which we undertake in this paper by evaluating nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English. We identify a significant issue: LLMs exhibit an order sensitivity in bilingual MCQs, favoring answers located at specific positions, i.e., the first position. We further quantify the gap between MCQs and long-form generation questions (LFGQs) by comparing their direct outputs, token logits, and embeddings. Our results reveal a relatively low correlation between answers from MCQs and LFGQs for identical questions. Additionally, we propose two methods to quantify the consistency and confidence of LLMs’ output, which can be generalized to other QA evaluation benchmarks. Notably, our analysis challenges the idea that the higher the consistency, the greater the accuracy. We also find MCQs to be less reliable than LFGQs in terms of expected calibration error. Finally, the misalignment between MCQs and LFGQs is not only reflected in the evaluation performance but also in the embedding space. Our code and models can be accessed at https://github.com/Meetyou-AI-Lab/Can-MC-Evaluate-LLMs.

The recent advances in natural language processing (NLP), have led to a new trend of applying large language models (LLMs) to real-world scenarios. While the latest LLMs are astonishingly fluent when interacting with humans, they suffer from the misinformation problem by unintentionally generating factually false statements. This can lead to harmful consequences, especially when produced within sensitive contexts, such as healthcare. Yet few previous works have focused on evaluating misinformation in the long-form (LF) generation of LLMs, especially for knowledge-intensive topics. Moreover, although LLMs have been shown to perform well in different languages, misinformation evaluation has been mostly conducted in English. To this end, we present a benchmark, CARE-MI, for evaluating LLM misinformation in: 1) a sensitive topic, specifically the maternity and infant care domain; and 2) a language other than English, namely Chinese. Most importantly, we provide an innovative paradigm for building LF generation evaluation benchmarks that can be transferred to other knowledge-intensive domains and low-resourced languages. Our proposed benchmark fills the gap between the extensive usage of LLMs and the lack of datasets for assessing the misinformation generated by these models. It contains 1,612 expert-checked questions, accompanied with human-selected references. Using our benchmark, we conduct extensive experiments and found that current Chinese LLMs are far from perfect in the topic of maternity and infant care. In an effort to minimize the reliance on human resources for performance evaluation, we offer off-the-shelf judgment models for automatically assessing the LF output of LLMs given benchmark questions. Moreover, we compare potential solutions for LF generation evaluation and provide insights for building better automated metrics.