Ji Qiu

Yongrui Chen, Zhiqiang Liu, Jing Yu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress on reasoning tasks involving unstructured text, yet their capabilities significantly deteriorate when reasoning requires integrating structured external knowledge such as knowledge graphs, code snippets, or formal logic. This limitation is partly due to the absence of benchmarks capable of systematically evaluating LLM performance across diverse structured knowledge modalities. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{OneEval}}, a comprehensive benchmark explicitly designed to assess the knowledge-intensive reasoning capabilities of LLMs across four structured knowledge modalities, unstructured text, knowledge graphs, code, and formal logic, and five critical domains (general knowledge, government, science, law, and programming). \textsc{OneEval} comprises 4,019 carefully curated instances and includes a challenging subset, \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}, consisting of 1,285 particularly difficult cases. Through extensive evaluation of 18 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, we establish three core findings: a) \emph{persistent limitations in structured reasoning}, with even the strongest model achieving only 32.2\% accuracy on \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}; b) \emph{performance consistently declines as the structural complexity of the knowledge base increases}, with accuracy dropping sharply from 53\% (textual reasoning) to 25\% (formal logic); and c) \emph{diminishing returns from extended reasoning chains}, highlighting the critical need for models to adapt reasoning depth appropriately to task complexity. We release the \textsc{OneEval} datasets, evaluation scripts, and baseline results publicly, accompanied by a leaderboard to facilitate ongoing advancements in structured knowledge reasoning.

Divyagna Bavikadi, Ayushi Agarwal, Shashank Ganta et al.

Recent advances in experimental methods have enabled researchers to collect data on thousands of analytes simultaneously. This has led to correlational studies that associated molecular measurements with diseases such as Alzheimer's, Liver, and Gastric Cancer. However, the use of thousands of biomarkers selected from the analytes is not practical for real-world medical diagnosis and is likely undesirable due to potentially formed spurious correlations. In this study, we evaluate 4 different methods for biomarker selection and 4 different machine learning (ML) classifiers for identifying correlations, evaluating 16 approaches in all. We found that contemporary methods outperform previously reported logistic regression in cases where 3 and 10 biomarkers are permitted. When specificity is fixed at 0.9, ML approaches produced a sensitivity of 0.240 (3 biomarkers) and 0.520 (10 biomarkers), while standard logistic regression provided a sensitivity of 0.000 (3 biomarkers) and 0.040 (10 biomarkers). We also noted that causal-based methods for biomarker selection proved to be the most performant when fewer biomarkers were permitted, while univariate feature selection was the most performant when a greater number of biomarkers were permitted.