Heuiseok Lim

Sugyeong Eo, Hyeonseok Moon, Evelyn Hayoon Zi et al.

Multiagent collaboration has emerged as a promising framework for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Despite improvements in reasoning, the approach introduces substantial computational overhead resulting from iterative agent interactions. Furthermore, engaging in unnecessary debates increases the risk of generating erroneous responses. To address these challenges, we propose Debate Only When Necessary (DOWN), an adaptive multiagent debate framework that selectively activates debate based on the confidence score of the agent's initial response. Debate is activated only for queries requiring further deliberation, during which agents refine their outputs by referencing peer responses and associated confidence scores. Evaluations on benchmarks show that DOWN improves efficiency by up to six times while preserving or even outperforming the performance of existing methods. Further analysis indicates that DOWN effectively mitigates the risk of error propagation stemming from the unnecessary debate process. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in delivering high-performance LLM solutions at a lower computational cost.

Dongjun Kim, Gyuho Shim, Yongchan Chun et al.

Large Language Models are commonly judged by their scores on standard benchmarks, yet such scores often overstate real capability since they mask the mix of skills a task actually demands. For example, ARC is assumed to test reasoning, while HellaSwag is designed to evaluate commonsense. However, we lack a systematic way to verify if these benchmarks actually measure these labels. We introduce Benchmark Profiling, a diagnostic framework that decomposes benchmark performance into ten cognitively grounded abilities. The method combines gradient-based importance scoring with targeted parameter ablation to compute an Ability Impact Score (AIS) that quantifies how much each ability contributes to a model's success on a given benchmark. Profiling three instruction-tuned models across ten widely used benchmarks yields four key findings: (i) most benchmarks draw on several abilities rather than one, (ii) datasets with similar labels rely on distinct ability mixtures, (iii) code-generation benchmarks reward broad, multi-skill improvement and thus show only modest gains from narrow domain-specific fine-tuning, and (iv) abilities irrelevant to the task could negatively affect performance. Benchmark Profiling therefore explains why performance gains do not always translate into user-perceived competence and offers a transparent tool for benchmark audit and model interpretability.

Jaehyung Seo, Hyeonseok Moon, Heuiseok Lim

Recent studies on hallucination in large language models (LLMs) have been actively progressing in natural language processing. However, the impact of negated text on hallucination with LLMs remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we set three important yet unanswered research questions and aim to address them. To derive the answers, we investigate whether LLMs can recognize contextual shifts caused by negation and still reliably distinguish hallucinations comparable to affirmative cases. We also design the NegHalu dataset by reconstructing existing hallucination detection datasets with negated expressions. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs struggle to detect hallucinations in negated text effectively, often producing logically inconsistent or unfaithful judgments. Moreover, we trace the internal state of LLMs as they process negated inputs at the token level and reveal the challenges of mitigating their unintended effects.

Sugyeong Eo, Jungjun Lee, Chanjun Park et al.

A sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture has emerged as a highly scalable solution by conditionally activating sub-modules without a proportional increase in computational costs. However, improving expert specialization to enhance performance and generalization remains a challenge for MoE, especially in instruction tuning scenarios characterized by significant input heterogeneity. In this work, we propose the Mixture-of-Clustered-Experts (MoCE) to address this limitation through a dual-stage routing mechanism. The first stage in the mechanism performs expert group routing based on sequence-level features, while the second stage activates the top-$k$ experts within the group at the token level. This approach enables the effective partitioning of heterogeneous inputs based on their knowledge requirements, encouraging expert group specialization while maintaining the advantages of token-level routing. We evaluate MoCE across a comprehensive set of benchmarks, demonstrating its consistent superiority over strong baselines and its enhanced generalization capabilities. Detailed analysis further highlights the robustness and effectiveness of MoCE.

Seonmin Koo, Chanjun Park, Jinsung Kim et al.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) outcomes serve as input for downstream tasks, substantially impacting the satisfaction level of end-users. Hence, the diagnosis and enhancement of the vulnerabilities present in the ASR model bear significant importance. However, traditional evaluation methodologies of ASR systems generate a singular, composite quantitative metric, which fails to provide comprehensive insight into specific vulnerabilities. This lack of detail extends to the post-processing stage, resulting in further obfuscation of potential weaknesses. Despite an ASR model's ability to recognize utterances accurately, subpar readability can negatively affect user satisfaction, giving rise to a trade-off between recognition accuracy and user-friendliness. To effectively address this, it is imperative to consider both the speech-level, crucial for recognition accuracy, and the text-level, critical for user-friendliness. Consequently, we propose the development of an Error Explainable Benchmark (EEB) dataset. This dataset, while considering both speech- and text-level, enables a granular understanding of the model's shortcomings. Our proposition provides a structured pathway for a more `real-world-centric' evaluation, a marked shift away from abstracted, traditional methods, allowing for the detection and rectification of nuanced system weaknesses, ultimately aiming for an improved user experience.