Jeff Z. Pan

Xiongtao Zhou, Jie He, Lanyu Chen et al.

Multimodal Chain of Thought (MCoT) is a popular prompting strategy for improving the performance of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across a range of complex reasoning tasks. Despite its popularity, there is a notable absence of automated methods for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps in MCoT. To address this gap, we propose Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Evaluation (MiCEval), a framework designed to assess the correctness of reasoning chains by evaluating the quality of both the description and each reasoning step. The evaluation of the description component focuses on the accuracy of the image descriptions, while the reasoning step evaluates the quality of each step as it is conditionally generated based on the preceding steps. MiCEval is built upon a fine-grained dataset with annotations that rate each step according to correctness, relevance, and informativeness. Extensive experiments on four state-of-the-art MLLMs show that step-wise evaluations using MiCEval align more closely with human judgments compared to existing methods based on cosine similarity or fine-tuning approaches. MiCEval datasets and code can be found in https://github.com/alenai97/MiCEval.

Shuofei Qiao, Yunxiang Wei, Xuehai Wang et al.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

Simon Yu, Jie He, Pasquale Minervini et al.

With the emergence of large language models, such as LLaMA and OpenAI GPT-3, In-Context Learning (ICL) gained significant attention due to its effectiveness and efficiency. However, ICL is very sensitive to the choice, order, and verbaliser used to encode the demonstrations in the prompt. Retrieval-Augmented ICL methods try to address this problem by leveraging retrievers to extract semantically related examples as demonstrations. While this approach yields more accurate results, its robustness against various types of adversarial attacks, including perturbations on test samples, demonstrations, and retrieved data, remains under-explored. Our study reveals that retrieval-augmented models can enhance robustness against test sample attacks, outperforming vanilla ICL with a 4.87% reduction in Attack Success Rate (ASR); however, they exhibit overconfidence in the demonstrations, leading to a 2% increase in ASR for demonstration attacks. Adversarial training can help improve the robustness of ICL methods to adversarial attacks; however, such a training scheme can be too costly in the context of LLMs. As an alternative, we introduce an effective training-free adversarial defence method, DARD, which enriches the example pool with those attacked samples. We show that DARD yields improvements in performance and robustness, achieving a 15% reduction in ASR over the baselines. Code and data are released to encourage further research: https://github.com/simonucl/adv-retreival-icl

Wenyu Huang, Guancheng Zhou, Mirella Lapata et al.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective in performing various NLP tasks, they still struggle to handle tasks that require extensive, real-world knowledge, especially when dealing with long-tail facts (facts related to long-tail entities). This limitation highlights the need to supplement LLMs with non-parametric knowledge. To address this issue, we analysed the effects of different types of non-parametric knowledge, including textual passage and knowledge graphs (KGs). Since LLMs have probably seen the majority of factual question-answering datasets already, to facilitate our analysis, we proposed a fully automatic pipeline for creating a benchmark that requires knowledge of long-tail facts for answering the involved questions. Using this pipeline, we introduce the LTGen benchmark. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs in different knowledge settings using the proposed benchmark. Our experiments show that LLMs alone struggle with answering these questions, especially when the long-tail level is high or rich knowledge is required. Nonetheless, the performance of the same models improved significantly when they were prompted with non-parametric knowledge. We observed that, in most cases, prompting LLMs with KG triples surpasses passage-based prompting using a state-of-the-art retriever. In addition, while prompting LLMs with both KG triples and documents does not consistently improve knowledge coverage, it can dramatically reduce hallucinations in the generated content.

Hongru Wang, Wenyu Huang, Yufei Wang et al.

Existing benchmarks that assess Language Models (LMs) as Language Agents (LAs) for tool use primarily focus on stateless, single-turn interactions or partial evaluations, such as tool selection in a single turn, overlooking the inherent stateful nature of interactions in multi-turn applications. To fulfill this gap, we propose \texttt{DialogTool}, a multi-turn dialogue dataset with stateful tool interactions considering the whole life cycle of tool use, across six key tasks in three stages: 1) \textit{tool creation}; 2) \textit{tool utilization}: tool awareness, tool selection, tool execution; and 3) \textit{role-consistent response}: response generation and role play. Furthermore, we build \texttt{VirtualMobile} -- an embodied virtual mobile evaluation environment to simulate API calls and assess the robustness of the created APIs\footnote{We will use tools and APIs alternatively, there are no significant differences between them in this paper.}. Taking advantage of these artifacts, we conduct comprehensive evaluation on 13 distinct open- and closed-source LLMs and provide detailed analysis at each stage, revealing that the existing state-of-the-art LLMs still cannot perform well to use tools over long horizons.

Yijun Yang, Zeyu Huang, Wenhao Zhu et al.

Existing frameworks for evaluating long-context language models (LCLM) can be broadly categorized into real-world applications (e.g, document summarization) and synthetic tasks (e.g, needle-in-a-haystack). Despite their utility, both approaches are accompanied by certain intrinsic limitations. Real-world tasks often involve complexity that makes interpretation challenging and suffer from data contamination, whereas synthetic tasks frequently lack meaningful coherence between the target information (needle) and its surrounding context (haystack), undermining their validity as proxies for realistic applications. In response to these challenges, we posit that an ideal long-context evaluation framework should be characterized by three essential features: 1) seamless context 2) controllable setting and 3) sound evaluation. This study introduces $\textbf{LongBioBench}$, a benchmark that utilizes artificially generated biographies as a controlled environment for assessing LCLMs across dimensions of understanding, reasoning, and trustworthiness. Our experimental evaluation, which includes 18 LCLMs in total, demonstrates that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results and are less trustworthy as context length increases. Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence, numerical needles, and the absence of distractors, rendering them vulnerable to test the model's long-context capabilities. To sum up, compared to previous synthetic benchmarks, LongBioBench achieves a better trade-off between mirroring authentic language tasks and maintaining controllability, and is highly interpretable and configurable.

Jie He, Simon Yu, Deyi Xiong et al.

Recent advancements of in-context learning (ICL) show language models can significantly improve their performance when demonstrations are provided. However, little attention has been paid to model calibration and prediction confidence of ICL in cross-lingual scenarios. To bridge this gap, we conduct a thorough analysis of ICL for cross-lingual sentiment classification. Our findings suggest that ICL performs poorly in cross-lingual scenarios, exhibiting low accuracy and presenting high calibration errors. In response, we propose a novel approach, N2C2, which employs a -nearest neighbors augmented classifier for prediction confidence calibration. N2C2 narrows the prediction gap by leveraging a datastore of cached few-shot instances. Specifically, N2C2 integrates the predictions from the datastore and incorporates confidence-aware distribution, semantically consistent retrieval representation, and adaptive neighbor combination modules to effectively utilize the limited number of supporting instances. Evaluation on two multilingual sentiment classification datasets demonstrates that N2C2 outperforms traditional ICL. It surpasses fine tuning, prompt tuning and recent state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy and calibration errors.