Tong Zhu

Zhaochen Su, Jun Zhang, Xiaoye Qu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive advancements across numerous disciplines, yet the critical issue of knowledge conflicts, a major source of hallucinations, has rarely been studied. Only a few research explored the conflicts between the inherent knowledge of LLMs and the retrieved contextual knowledge. However, a thorough assessment of knowledge conflict in LLMs is still missing. Motivated by this research gap, we present ConflictBank, the first comprehensive benchmark developed to systematically evaluate knowledge conflicts from three aspects: (i) conflicts encountered in retrieved knowledge, (ii) conflicts within the models' encoded knowledge, and (iii) the interplay between these conflict forms. Our investigation delves into four model families and twelve LLM instances, meticulously analyzing conflicts stemming from misinformation, temporal discrepancies, and semantic divergences. Based on our proposed novel construction framework, we create 7,453,853 claim-evidence pairs and 553,117 QA pairs. We present numerous findings on model scale, conflict causes, and conflict types. We hope our ConflictBank benchmark will help the community better understand model behavior in conflicts and develop more reliable LLMs.

Hongwei Liu, Junnan Liu, Shudong Liu et al.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to performance saturation on many established benchmarks, questioning their ability to distinguish frontier models. Concurrently, existing high-difficulty benchmarks often suffer from narrow disciplinary focus, oversimplified answer formats, and vulnerability to data contamination, creating a fidelity gap with real-world scientific inquiry. To address these challenges, we introduce ATLAS (AGI-Oriented Testbed for Logical Application in Science), a large-scale, high-difficulty, and cross-disciplinary evaluation suite composed of approximately 800 original problems. Developed by domain experts (PhD-level and above), ATLAS spans seven core scientific fields: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, earth science, and materials science. Its key features include: (1) High Originality and Contamination Resistance, with all questions newly created or substantially adapted to prevent test data leakage; (2) Cross-Disciplinary Focus, designed to assess models' ability to integrate knowledge and reason across scientific domains; (3) High-Fidelity Answers, prioritizing complex, open-ended answers involving multi-step reasoning and LaTeX-formatted expressions over simple multiple-choice questions; and (4) Rigorous Quality Control, employing a multi-stage process of expert peer review and adversarial testing to ensure question difficulty, scientific value, and correctness. We also propose a robust evaluation paradigm using a panel of LLM judges for automated, nuanced assessment of complex answers. Preliminary results on leading models demonstrate ATLAS's effectiveness in differentiating their advanced scientific reasoning capabilities. We plan to develop ATLAS into a long-term, open, community-driven platform to provide a reliable "ruler" for progress toward Artificial General Intelligence.

Spyros Angelopoulos, Shahin Kamali, Kimia Shadkami

Bin packing is a classic optimization problem with a wide range of applications, from load balancing to supply chain management. In this work, we study the online variant of the problem, in which a sequence of items of various sizes must be placed into a minimum number of bins of uniform capacity. The online algorithm is enhanced with a (potentially erroneous) prediction concerning the frequency of item sizes in the sequence. We design and analyze online algorithms with efficient tradeoffs between the consistency (i.e., the competitive ratio assuming no prediction error) and the robustness (i.e., the competitive ratio under adversarial error), and whose performance degrades near-optimally as a function of the prediction error. This is the first theoretical and experimental study of online bin packing under competitive analysis, in the realistic setting of learnable predictions. Previous work addressed only extreme cases with respect to the prediction error, and relied on overly powerful and error-free oracles.

Tong Zhu, Haitao Wang, Junjie Yu et al.

In recent years, distantly-supervised relation extraction has achieved a certain success by using deep neural networks. Distant Supervision (DS) can automatically generate large-scale annotated data by aligning entity pairs from Knowledge Bases (KB) to sentences. However, these DS-generated datasets inevitably have wrong labels that result in incorrect evaluation scores during testing, which may mislead the researchers. To solve this problem, we build a new dataset NYTH, where we use the DS-generated data as training data and hire annotators to label test data. Compared with the previous datasets, NYT-H has a much larger test set and then we can perform more accurate and consistent evaluation. Finally, we present the experimental results of several widely used systems on NYT-H. The experimental results show that the ranking lists of the comparison systems on the DS-labelled test data and human-annotated test data are different. This indicates that our human-annotated data is necessary for evaluation of distantly-supervised relation extraction.

Haitao Wang, Zhengqiu He, Tong Zhu et al.

The CCKS2019 shared task was devoted to inter-personal relationship extraction. Given two person entities and at least one sentence containing these two entities, participating teams are asked to predict the relationship between the entities according to a given relation list. This year, 358 teams from various universities and organizations participated in this task. In this paper, we present the task definition, the description of data and the evaluation methodology used during this shared task. We also present a brief overview of the various methods adopted by the participating teams. Finally, we present the evaluation results.