As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evolve into sophisticated interactive assistants, their reliability depends not only on following instructions but also on validating them. We define Proactive Critique as the model’s autonomous ability to identify, analyze and fix faulty user inputs without extra prompts. However, evaluations mainly test models under ideal circumstances or simple refusal behaviors, largely ignoring active error processing. To fill this gap, we propose MMPCBench, a comprehensive framework for evaluating MLLMs’ proactive critique competence. It features a fine-grained taxonomy of 4 primary error types spanning 12 subcategories, ranging from cross-modal contradictions to missing visual premises. We adopt a hierarchical evaluation protocol to measure models’ error detection, diagnosis and resolution performance, and apply alignment-aware metrics to assess the coherence between internal reasoning and final responses. Tests on 14 mainstream MLLMs show obvious weaknesses in proactive critique, especially in dealing with subtle visual anomalies. Notably, we identify a pervasive "consistency gap": reasoning models can often correctly identify and analyze errors during internal reasoning yet suppress these valid insights in final outputs to prioritize response compliance.

Multi-turn instruction following capability constitutes a core competency of large language models (LLMs) in real-world applications. Existing evaluation benchmarks predominantly focus on fine-grained constraint satisfaction and domain-specific capability assessment, yet overlook the crucial structural dependencies between dialogue turns that distinguish multi-turn from single-turn interactions. These structural dependencies not only reflect user intent but also establish an essential second dimension for the instruction following evaluation beyond constraint satisfaction. To address this gap, we propose StructFlowBench, a multi-turn instruction following benchmark with structural flow modeling. The benchmark defines an innovative structural flow framework with six fundamental inter-turn relationships. These relationships introduce novel structural constraints for model evaluation and also serve as generation parameters for creating customized dialogue flows tailored to specific scenarios. Adopting established LLM-based automatic evaluation methodologies, we conduct systematic evaluations of 13 leading open-source and closed-source LLMs. Experimental results reveal significant deficiencies in current models’ comprehension of multi-turn dialogue structures. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/StructFlowBench.

With a knowledge graph and a set of if-then rules, can we reason about the conclusions given a set of observations? In this work, we formalize this question as the cognitive inference problem, and introduce the Cognitive Knowledge Graph (CogKG) that unifies two representations of heterogeneous symbolic knowledge: expert rules and relational facts. We propose a general framework in which the unified knowledge representations can perform both learning and reasoning. Specifically, we implement the above framework in two settings, depending on the availability of labeled data. When no labeled data are available for training, the framework can directly utilize symbolic knowledge as the decision basis and perform reasoning. When labeled data become available, the framework casts symbolic knowledge as a trainable neural architecture and optimizes the connection weights among neurons through gradient descent. Empirical study on two clinical diagnosis benchmarks demonstrates the superiority of the proposed method over time-tested knowledge-driven and data-driven methods, showing the great potential of the proposed method in unifying heterogeneous symbolic knowledge, i.e., expert rules and relational facts, as the substrate of machine learning and reasoning models.