arXiv subjects

Alon Jacovi

Publications and source records attributed to Alon Jacovi.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

The FACTS Leaderboard: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Model Factuality

We introduce The FACTS Leaderboard, an online leaderboard suite and associated set of benchmarks that comprehensively evaluates the ability of language models to generate factually accurate text across diverse scenarios. The suite provides a holistic measure of factuality by aggregating the performance of models on four distinct sub-leaderboards: (1) FACTS Multimodal, which measures the factuality of responses to image-based questions; (2) FACTS Parametric, which assesses models' world knowledge by answering closed-book factoid questions from internal parameters; (3) FACTS Search, which evaluates factuality in information-seeking scenarios, where the model must use a search API; and (4) FACTS Grounding (v2), which evaluates whether long-form responses are grounded in provided documents, featuring significantly improved judge models. Each sub-leaderboard employs automated judge models to score model responses, and the final suite score is an average of the four components, designed to provide a robust and balanced assessment of a model's overall factuality. The FACTS Leaderboard Suite will be actively maintained, containing both public and private splits to allow for external participation while guarding its integrity. It can be found at https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/google/facts .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DoubleDipper: Improving Long-Context LLMs via Context Recycling

Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance on tasks involving long contexts remains sub-optimal. In this work, we propose DoubleDipper, a novel In-Context-Learning method that automatically generates few-shot examples for long context QA tasks by recycling contexts. Specifically, given a long input context (1-3k tokens) and a query, we generate additional query-output pairs from the given context as few-shot examples, while introducing the context only once. This ensures that the demonstrations are leveraging the same context as the target query while only adding a small number of tokens to the prompt. We further enhance each demonstration by instructing the model to explicitly identify the relevant paragraphs before the answer, which improves performance while providing fine-grained attribution to the answer source. We apply our method on multiple LLMs and obtain substantial improvements (+16 absolute points on average across models) on various QA datasets with long context. Surprisingly, despite introducing only single-hop ICL examples, LLMs successfully generalize to multi-hop long-context QA using our approach.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Is It Really Long Context if All You Need Is Retrieval? Towards Genuinely Difficult Long Context NLP

Improvements in language models' capabilities have pushed their applications towards longer contexts, making long-context evaluation and development an active research area. However, many disparate use-cases are grouped together under the umbrella term of "long-context", defined simply by the total length of the model's input, including - for example - Needle-in-a-Haystack tasks, book summarization, and information aggregation. Given their varied difficulty, in this position paper we argue that conflating different tasks by their context length is unproductive. As a community, we require a more precise vocabulary to understand what makes long-context tasks similar or different. We propose to unpack the taxonomy of long-context based on the properties that make them more difficult with longer contexts. We propose two orthogonal axes of difficulty: (I) Diffusion: How hard is it to find the necessary information in the context? (II) Scope: How much necessary information is there to find? We survey the literature on long-context, provide justification for this taxonomy as an informative descriptor, and situate the literature with respect to it. We conclude that the most difficult and interesting settings, whose necessary information is very long and highly diffused within the input, is severely under-explored. By using a descriptive vocabulary and discussing the relevant properties of difficulty in long-context, we can implement more informed research in this area. We call for a careful design of tasks and benchmarks with distinctly long context, taking into account the characteristics that make it qualitatively different from shorter context.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

DRAGged into Conflicts: Detecting and Addressing Conflicting Sources in Search-Augmented LLMs

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is a commonly used approach for enhancing large language models (LLMs) with relevant and up-to-date information. However, the retrieved sources can often contain conflicting information and it remains unclear how models should address such discrepancies. In this work, we first propose a novel taxonomy of knowledge conflict types in RAG, along with the desired model behavior for each type. We then introduce CONFLICTS, a high-quality benchmark with expert annotations of conflict types in a realistic RAG setting. CONFLICTS is the first benchmark that enables tracking progress on how models address a wide range of knowledge conflicts. We conduct extensive experiments on this benchmark, showing that LLMs often struggle to appropriately resolve conflicts between sources. While prompting LLMs to explicitly reason about the potential conflict in the retrieved documents significantly improves the quality and appropriateness of their responses, substantial room for improvement in future research remains.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ConSim: Measuring Concept-Based Explanations' Effectiveness with Automated Simulatability

Concept-based explanations work by mapping complex model computations to human-understandable concepts. Evaluating such explanations is very difficult, as it includes not only the quality of the induced space of possible concepts but also how effectively the chosen concepts are communicated to users. Existing evaluation metrics often focus solely on the former, neglecting the latter. We introduce an evaluation framework for measuring concept explanations via automated simulatability: a simulator's ability to predict the explained model's outputs based on the provided explanations. This approach accounts for both the concept space and its interpretation in an end-to-end evaluation. Human studies for simulatability are notoriously difficult to enact, particularly at the scale of a wide, comprehensive empirical evaluation (which is the subject of this work). We propose using large language models (LLMs) as simulators to approximate the evaluation and report various analyses to make such approximations reliable. Our method allows for scalable and consistent evaluation across various models and datasets. We report a comprehensive empirical evaluation using this framework and show that LLMs provide consistent rankings of explanation methods. Code available at https://github.com/AnonymousConSim/ConSim.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input

We introduce FACTS Grounding, an online leaderboard and associated benchmark that evaluates language models' ability to generate text that is factually accurate with respect to given context in the user prompt. In our benchmark, each prompt includes a user request and a full document, with a maximum length of 32k tokens, requiring long-form responses. The long-form responses are required to be fully grounded in the provided context document while fulfilling the user request. Models are evaluated using automated judge models in two phases: (1) responses are disqualified if they do not fulfill the user request; (2) they are judged as accurate if the response is fully grounded in the provided document. The automated judge models were comprehensively evaluated against a held-out test-set to pick the best prompt template, and the final factuality score is an aggregate of multiple judge models to mitigate evaluation bias. The FACTS Grounding leaderboard will be actively maintained over time, and contains both public and private splits to allow for external participation while guarding the integrity of the leaderboard. It can be found at https://www.kaggle.com/facts-leaderboard.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

CoverBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Complex Claim Verification

There is a growing line of research on verifying the correctness of language models' outputs. At the same time, LMs are being used to tackle complex queries that require reasoning. We introduce CoverBench, a challenging benchmark focused on verifying LM outputs in complex reasoning settings. Datasets that can be used for this purpose are often designed for other complex reasoning tasks (e.g., QA) targeting specific use-cases (e.g., financial tables), requiring transformations, negative sampling and selection of hard examples to collect such a benchmark. CoverBench provides a diversified evaluation for complex claim verification in a variety of domains, types of reasoning, relatively long inputs, and a variety of standardizations, such as multiple representations for tables where available, and a consistent schema. We manually vet the data for quality to ensure low levels of label noise. Finally, we report a variety of competitive baseline results to show CoverBench is challenging and has very significant headroom. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/google/coverbench .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

TACT: Advancing Complex Aggregative Reasoning with Information Extraction Tools

Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not perform well on queries that require the aggregation of information across texts. To better evaluate this setting and facilitate modeling efforts, we introduce TACT - Text And Calculations through Tables, a dataset crafted to evaluate LLMs' reasoning and computational abilities using complex instructions. TACT contains challenging instructions that demand stitching information scattered across one or more texts, and performing complex integration on this information to generate the answer. We construct this dataset by leveraging an existing dataset of texts and their associated tables. For each such tables, we formulate new queries, and gather their respective answers. We demonstrate that all contemporary LLMs perform poorly on this dataset, achieving an accuracy below 38%. To pinpoint the difficulties and thoroughly dissect the problem, we analyze model performance across three components: table-generation, Pandas command-generation, and execution. Unexpectedly, we discover that each component presents substantial challenges for current LLMs. These insights lead us to propose a focused modeling framework, which we refer to as IE as a tool. Specifically, we propose to add "tools" for each of the above steps, and implement each such tool with few-shot prompting. This approach shows an improvement over existing prompting techniques, offering a promising direction for enhancing model capabilities in these tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Unpacking Human-AI Interaction in Safety-Critical Industries: A Systematic Literature Review

Ensuring quality human-AI interaction (HAII) in safety-critical industries is essential. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic and deadly consequences. Despite this urgency, existing research on HAII is limited, fragmented, and inconsistent. We present here a survey of that literature and recommendations for research best practices that should improve the field. We divided our investigation into the following areas: 1) terms used to describe HAII, 2) primary roles of AI-enabled systems, 3) factors that influence HAII, and 4) how HAII is measured. Additionally, we described the capabilities and maturity of the AI-enabled systems used in safety-critical industries discussed in these articles. We found that no single term is used across the literature to describe HAII and some terms have multiple meanings. According to our literature, seven factors influence HAII: user characteristics (e.g., user personality), user perceptions and attitudes (e.g., user biases), user expectations and experience (e.g., mismatched user expectations and experience), AI interface and features (e.g., interactive design), AI output (e.g., perceived accuracy), explainability and interpretability (e.g., level of detail, user understanding), and usage of AI (e.g., heterogeneity of environments). HAII is most measured with user-related subjective metrics (e.g., user perceptions, trust, and attitudes), and AI-assisted decision-making is the most common primary role of AI-enabled systems. Based on this review, we conclude that there are substantial research gaps in HAII. Researchers and developers need to codify HAII terminology, involve users throughout the AI lifecycle (especially during development), and tailor HAII in safety-critical industries to the users and environments.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Data Contamination Report from the 2024 CONDA Shared Task

The 1st Workshop on Data Contamination (CONDA 2024) focuses on all relevant aspects of data contamination in natural language processing, where data contamination is understood as situations where evaluation data is included in pre-training corpora used to train large scale models, compromising evaluation results. The workshop fostered a shared task to collect evidence on data contamination in current available datasets and models. The goal of the shared task and associated database is to assist the community in understanding the extent of the problem and to assist researchers in avoiding reporting evaluation results on known contaminated resources. The shared task provides a structured, centralized public database for the collection of contamination evidence, open to contributions from the community via GitHub pool requests. This first compilation paper is based on 566 reported entries over 91 contaminated sources from a total of 23 contributors. The details of the individual contamination events are available in the platform. The platform continues to be online, open to contributions from the community.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains

Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., "Chain-of-Thought") is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce REVEAL: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question-answering settings. REVEAL includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models. Evaluation on REVEAL shows that verifiers struggle at verifying reasoning chains - in particular, verifying logical correctness and detecting contradictions. Available at https://reveal-dataset.github.io/ .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Tool-Assisted Generation Strategies

A growing area of research investigates augmenting language models with tools (e.g., search engines, calculators) to overcome their shortcomings (e.g., missing or incorrect knowledge, incorrect logical inferences). Various few-shot tool-usage strategies have been proposed. However, there is no systematic and fair comparison across different strategies, or between these strategies and strong baselines that do not leverage tools. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis, finding that (1) across various datasets, example difficulty levels, and models, strong no-tool baselines are competitive to tool-assisted strategies, implying that effectively using tools with in-context demonstrations is a difficult unsolved problem; (2) for knowledge-retrieval tasks, strategies that *refine* incorrect outputs with tools outperform strategies that retrieve relevant information *ahead of* or *during generation*; (3) tool-assisted strategies are expensive in the number of tokens they require to work -- incurring additional costs by orders of magnitude -- which does not translate into significant improvement in performance. Overall, our findings suggest that few-shot tool integration is still an open challenge, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of future strategies to accurately assess their *benefits* and *costs*.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Diagnosing AI Explanation Methods with Folk Concepts of Behavior

We investigate a formalism for the conditions of a successful explanation of AI. We consider "success" to depend not only on what information the explanation contains, but also on what information the human explainee understands from it. Theory of mind literature discusses the folk concepts that humans use to understand and generalize behavior. We posit that folk concepts of behavior provide us with a "language" that humans understand behavior with. We use these folk concepts as a framework of social attribution by the human explainee - the information constructs that humans are likely to comprehend from explanations - by introducing a blueprint for an explanatory narrative (Figure 1) that explains AI behavior with these constructs. We then demonstrate that many XAI methods today can be mapped to folk concepts of behavior in a qualitative evaluation. This allows us to uncover their failure modes that prevent current methods from explaining successfully - i.e., the information constructs that are missing for any given XAI method, and whose inclusion can decrease the likelihood of misunderstanding AI behavior.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks

Data contamination has become prevalent and challenging with the rise of models pretrained on large automatically-crawled corpora. For closed models, the training data becomes a trade secret, and even for open models, it is not trivial to detect contamination. Strategies such as leaderboards with hidden answers, or using test data which is guaranteed to be unseen, are expensive and become fragile with time. Assuming that all relevant actors value clean test data and will cooperate to mitigate data contamination, what can be done? We propose three strategies that can make a difference: (1) Test data made public should be encrypted with a public key and licensed to disallow derivative distribution; (2) demand training exclusion controls from closed API holders, and protect your test data by refusing to evaluate without them; (3) avoid data which appears with its solution on the internet, and release the web-page context of internet-derived data along with the data. These strategies are practical and can be effective in preventing data contamination.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Neighboring Words Affect Human Interpretation of Saliency Explanations

Word-level saliency explanations ("heat maps over words") are often used to communicate feature-attribution in text-based models. Recent studies found that superficial factors such as word length can distort human interpretation of the communicated saliency scores. We conduct a user study to investigate how the marking of a word's neighboring words affect the explainee's perception of the word's importance in the context of a saliency explanation. We find that neighboring words have significant effects on the word's importance rating. Concretely, we identify that the influence changes based on neighboring direction (left vs. right) and a-priori linguistic and computational measures of phrases and collocations (vs. unrelated neighboring words). Our results question whether text-based saliency explanations should be continued to be communicated at word level, and inform future research on alternative saliency explanation methods.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Trends in Explainable AI (XAI) Literature

The XAI literature is decentralized, both in terminology and in publication venues, but recent years saw the community converge around keywords that make it possible to more reliably discover papers automatically. We use keyword search using the SemanticScholar API and manual curation to collect a well-formatted and reasonably comprehensive set of 5199 XAI papers, available at https://github.com/alonjacovi/XAI-Scholar . We use this collection to clarify and visualize trends about the size and scope of the literature, citation trends, cross-field trends, and collaboration trends. Overall, XAI is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, with relative growth in papers belonging to increasingly diverse (non-CS) scientific fields, increasing cross-field collaborative authorship, increasing cross-field citation activity. The collection can additionally be used as a paper discovery engine, by retrieving XAI literature which is cited according to specific constraints (for example, papers that are influential outside of their field, or influential to non-XAI research).

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text

While a lot of research in explainable AI focuses on producing effective explanations, less work is devoted to the question of how people understand and interpret the explanation. In this work, we focus on this question through a study of saliency-based explanations over textual data. Feature-attribution explanations of text models aim to communicate which parts of the input text were more influential than others towards the model decision. Many current explanation methods, such as gradient-based or Shapley value-based methods, provide measures of importance which are well-understood mathematically. But how does a person receiving the explanation (the explainee) comprehend it? And does their understanding match what the explanation attempted to communicate? We empirically investigate the effect of various factors of the input, the feature-attribution explanation, and visualization procedure, on laypeople's interpretation of the explanation. We query crowdworkers for their interpretation on tasks in English and German, and fit a GAMM model to their responses considering the factors of interest. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations: superficial and unrelated factors, such as word length, influence the explainees' importance assignment despite the explanation communicating importance directly. We then show that some of this distortion can be attenuated: we propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception, and explore bar charts as an alternative to heatmap saliency visualization. We find that both approaches can attenuate the distorting effect of specific factors, leading to better-calibrated understanding of the explanation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2021

Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability

Contrastive explanations clarify why an event occurred in contrast to another. They are more inherently intuitive to humans to both produce and comprehend. We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models by modifying the representation to disregard non-contrastive information, and modifying model behavior to only be based on contrastive reasoning. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space that captures only the features that are useful (to the model) to differentiate two potential decisions. We demonstrate the value of contrastive explanations by analyzing two different scenarios, using both high-level abstract concept attribution and low-level input token/span attribution, on two widely used text classification tasks. Specifically, we produce explanations for answering: for which label, and against which alternative label, is some aspect of the input useful? And which aspects of the input are useful for and against particular decisions? Overall, our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.

cs.CL↗