arXiv subjects

Arman Cohan

Publications and source records attributed to Arman Cohan.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

arXiv2025

mFollowIR: a Multilingual Benchmark for Instruction Following in Retrieval

Retrieval systems generally focus on web-style queries that are short and underspecified. However, advances in language models have facilitated the nascent rise of retrieval models that can understand more complex queries with diverse intents. However, these efforts have focused exclusively on English; therefore, we do not yet understand how they work across languages. We introduce mFollowIR, a multilingual benchmark for measuring instruction-following ability in retrieval models. mFollowIR builds upon the TREC NeuCLIR narratives (or instructions) that span three diverse languages (Russian, Chinese, Persian) giving both query and instruction to the retrieval models. We make small changes to the narratives and isolate how well retrieval models can follow these nuanced changes. We present results for both multilingual (XX-XX) and cross-lingual (En-XX) performance. We see strong cross-lingual performance with English-based retrievers that trained using instructions, but find a notable drop in performance in the multilingual setting, indicating that more work is needed in developing data for instruction-based multilingual retrievers.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

MMVU: Measuring Expert-Level Multi-Discipline Video Understanding

We introduce MMVU, a comprehensive expert-level, multi-discipline benchmark for evaluating foundation models in video understanding. MMVU includes 3,000 expert-annotated questions spanning 27 subjects across four core disciplines: Science, Healthcare, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Engineering. Compared to prior benchmarks, MMVU features three key advancements. First, it challenges models to apply domain-specific knowledge and perform expert-level reasoning to analyze specialized-domain videos, moving beyond the basic visual perception typically assessed in current video benchmarks. Second, each example is annotated by human experts from scratch. We implement strict data quality controls to ensure the high quality of the dataset. Finally, each example is enriched with expert-annotated reasoning rationals and relevant domain knowledge, facilitating in-depth analysis. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 32 frontier multimodal foundation models on MMVU. The latest System-2-capable models, o1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, achieve the highest performance among the tested models. However, they still fall short of matching human expertise. Through in-depth error analyses and case studies, we offer actionable insights for future advancements in expert-level, knowledge-intensive video understanding for specialized domains.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

ChemAgent: Self-updating Library in Large Language Models Improves Chemical Reasoning

Chemical reasoning usually involves complex, multi-step processes that demand precise calculations, where even minor errors can lead to cascading failures. Furthermore, large language models (LLMs) encounter difficulties handling domain-specific formulas, executing reasoning steps accurately, and integrating code effectively when tackling chemical reasoning tasks. To address these challenges, we present ChemAgent, a novel framework designed to improve the performance of LLMs through a dynamic, self-updating library. This library is developed by decomposing chemical tasks into sub-tasks and compiling these sub-tasks into a structured collection that can be referenced for future queries. Then, when presented with a new problem, ChemAgent retrieves and refines pertinent information from the library, which we call memory, facilitating effective task decomposition and the generation of solutions. Our method designs three types of memory and a library-enhanced reasoning component, enabling LLMs to improve over time through experience. Experimental results on four chemical reasoning datasets from SciBench demonstrate that ChemAgent achieves performance gains of up to 46% (GPT-4), significantly outperforming existing methods. Our findings suggest substantial potential for future applications, including tasks such as drug discovery and materials science. Our code can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/chemagent

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

HumanEval Pro and MBPP Pro: Evaluating Large Language Models on Self-invoking Code Generation

We introduce self-invoking code generation, a new task designed to evaluate the progressive reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. In this task, models are presented with a base problem and a related, more complex problem. They must solve the base problem and then utilize its solution to address the more complex one. This work features three key contributions. First, we propose a general recipe for generating more challenging versions of existing benchmarks, resulting in three new benchmarks: HumanEval Pro, MBPP Pro, and BigCodeBench-Lite Pro, specifically designed to assess LLMs on self-invoking code generation. Second, from the analysis of experimental results over twenty LLMs on our benchmarks, we have two important observations: (i) Most LLMs excel in traditional code generation benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP, but their performance declines on self-invoking tasks. For example, o1-mini achieves 96.2% pass@1 on HumanEval but only 76.2% on HumanEval Pro. (ii) On self-invoking code generation task, the instruction-tuned models demonstrate only marginal improvements compared to the base models. Third, we disclose the types of failure modes that exist in our evaluation results. All these results underscore the need for further advancements in self-invoking code generation tasks and provide a new direction for future research on enhancing LLMs' code reasoning capabilities.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

ChemSafetyBench: Benchmarking LLM Safety on Chemistry Domain

The advancement and extensive application of large language models (LLMs) have been remarkable, including their use in scientific research assistance. However, these models often generate scientifically incorrect or unsafe responses, and in some cases, they may encourage users to engage in dangerous behavior. To address this issue in the field of chemistry, we introduce ChemSafetyBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of LLM responses. ChemSafetyBench encompasses three key tasks: querying chemical properties, assessing the legality of chemical uses, and describing synthesis methods, each requiring increasingly deeper chemical knowledge. Our dataset has more than 30K samples across various chemical materials. We incorporate handcrafted templates and advanced jailbreaking scenarios to enhance task diversity. Our automated evaluation framework thoroughly assesses the safety, accuracy, and appropriateness of LLM responses. Extensive experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal notable strengths and critical vulnerabilities, underscoring the need for robust safety measures. ChemSafetyBench aims to be a pivotal tool in developing safer AI technologies in chemistry. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HaochenZhao/SafeAgent4Chem. Warning: this paper contains discussions on the synthesis of controlled chemicals using AI models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

SciDQA: A Deep Reading Comprehension Dataset over Scientific Papers

Scientific literature is typically dense, requiring significant background knowledge and deep comprehension for effective engagement. We introduce SciDQA, a new dataset for reading comprehension that challenges LLMs for a deep understanding of scientific articles, consisting of 2,937 QA pairs. Unlike other scientific QA datasets, SciDQA sources questions from peer reviews by domain experts and answers by paper authors, ensuring a thorough examination of the literature. We enhance the dataset's quality through a process that carefully filters out lower quality questions, decontextualizes the content, tracks the source document across different versions, and incorporates a bibliography for multi-document question-answering. Questions in SciDQA necessitate reasoning across figures, tables, equations, appendices, and supplementary materials, and require multi-document reasoning. We evaluate several open-source and proprietary LLMs across various configurations to explore their capabilities in generating relevant and factual responses. Our comprehensive evaluation, based on metrics for surface-level similarity and LLM judgements, highlights notable performance discrepancies. SciDQA represents a rigorously curated, naturally derived scientific QA dataset, designed to facilitate research on complex scientific text understanding.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FinDVer: Explainable Claim Verification over Long and Hybrid-Content Financial Documents

We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 2,400 expert-annotated examples, divided into three subsets: information extraction, numerical reasoning, and knowledge-intensive reasoning, each addressing common scenarios encountered in real-world financial contexts. We assess a broad spectrum of LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system, GPT-4o, still lags behind human experts. We further provide in-depth analysis on long-context and RAG setting, Chain-of-Thought reasoning, and model reasoning errors, offering insights to drive future advancements. We believe that FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show the potential of using LLMs as evaluators for assessing the quality of text generations from LLMs. However, applying LLM evaluators naively to compare or judge between different systems can lead to unreliable results due to the intrinsic win rate estimation bias of LLM evaluators. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose two calibration methods, Bayesian Win Rate Sampling (BWRS) and Bayesian Dawid-Skene, both of which leverage Bayesian inference to more accurately infer the true win rate of generative language models. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks. We show that both our methods are effective in improving the accuracy of win rate estimation using LLMs as evaluators, offering a promising direction for reliable automatic text quality evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

M3SciQA: A Multi-Modal Multi-Document Scientific QA Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models

Existing benchmarks for evaluating foundation models mainly focus on single-document, text-only tasks. However, they often fail to fully capture the complexity of research workflows, which typically involve interpreting non-textual data and gathering information across multiple documents. To address this gap, we introduce M3SciQA, a multi-modal, multi-document scientific question answering benchmark designed for a more comprehensive evaluation of foundation models. M3SciQA consists of 1,452 expert-annotated questions spanning 70 natural language processing paper clusters, where each cluster represents a primary paper along with all its cited documents, mirroring the workflow of comprehending a single paper by requiring multi-modal and multi-document data. With M3SciQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 18 foundation models. Our results indicate that current foundation models still significantly underperform compared to human experts in multi-modal information retrieval and in reasoning across multiple scientific documents. Additionally, we explore the implications of these findings for the future advancement of applying foundation models in multi-modal scientific literature analysis.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Calibrating Long-form Generations from Large Language Models

To enhance Large Language Models' (LLMs) reliability, calibration is essential -- the model's assessed confidence scores should align with the actual likelihood of its responses being correct. However, current confidence elicitation methods and calibration metrics typically rely on a binary true/false assessment of response correctness. This approach does not apply to long-form generation, where an answer can be partially correct. Addressing this gap, we introduce a unified calibration framework, in which both the correctness of the LLMs' responses and their associated confidence levels are treated as distributions across a range of scores. Within this framework, we develop three metrics to precisely evaluate LLM calibration and further propose two confidence elicitation methods based on self-consistency and self-evaluation. Our experiments, which include long-form QA and summarization tasks, demonstrate that larger models don't necessarily guarantee better calibration, that calibration performance is found to be metric-dependent, and that self-consistency methods excel in factoid datasets. We also find that calibration can be enhanced through techniques such as fine-tuning, integrating relevant source documents, scaling the temperature, and combining self-consistency with self-evaluation. Lastly, we showcase a practical application of our system: selecting and cascading open-source models and ChatGPT to optimize correctness given a limited API budget. This research not only challenges existing notions of LLM calibration but also offers practical methodologies for improving trustworthiness in long-form generation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. However, existing benchmarks are inadequate in measuring the complex logical reasoning capabilities of a model. We present FOLIO, a human-annotated, logically complex and diverse dataset for reasoning in natural language (NL), equipped with first-order logic (FOL) annotations. FOLIO consists of 1,430 examples (unique conclusions), each paired with one of 487 sets of premises used to deductively reason for the validity of each conclusion. The logical correctness of the premises and conclusions is ensured by their FOL annotations, which are automatically verified by an FOL inference engine. In addition to the main NL reasoning task, NL-FOL pairs in FOLIO constitute a new NL-FOL translation dataset. Our experiments on FOLIO systematically evaluate the FOL reasoning ability of supervised fine-tuning on medium-sized language models. For both NL reasoning and NL-FOL translation, we benchmark multiple state-of-the-art language models. Our results show that a subset of FOLIO presents a challenge for one of the most capable {Large Language Model (LLM)} publicly available, GPT-4.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

P-FOLIO: Evaluating and Improving Logical Reasoning with Abundant Human-Written Reasoning Chains

Existing methods on understanding the capabilities of LLMs in logical reasoning rely on binary entailment classification or synthetically derived rationales, which are not sufficient for proper investigation of model's capabilities. We present P-FOLIO, a human-annotated dataset consisting of diverse and complex reasoning chains for a set of realistic logical reasoning stories also written by humans. P-FOLIO is collected with an annotation protocol that facilitates humans to annotate well-structured natural language proofs for first-order logic reasoning problems in a step-by-step manner. The number of reasoning steps in P-FOLIO span from 0 to 20. We further use P-FOLIO to evaluate and improve large-language-model (LLM) reasoning capabilities. We evaluate LLM reasoning capabilities at a fine granularity via single-step inference rule classification, with more diverse inference rules of more diverse and higher levels of complexities than previous works. Given that a single model-generated reasoning chain could take a completely different path than the human-annotated one, we sample multiple reasoning chains from a model and use pass@k metrics for evaluating the quality of model-generated reasoning chains. We show that human-written reasoning chains significantly boost the logical reasoning capabilities of LLMs via many-shot prompting and fine-tuning. Furthermore, fine-tuning Llama3-7B on P-FOLIO improves the model performance by 10% or more on three other out-of-domain logical reasoning datasets. We also conduct detailed analysis to show where most powerful LLMs fall short in reasoning. We will release the dataset and code publicly.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our large-scale evaluation reveals: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness can depend on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for more than 500 LLM-evaluator configurations, to support future research in instruction-following evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Understanding Reference Policies in Direct Preference Optimization

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has become a widely used training method for the instruction fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we explore an under-investigated aspect of DPO - its dependency on the reference model or policy. Such reference policies, typically instantiated as the model to be further fine-tuned, are important since they can impose an upper limit on DPO's effectiveness. Therefore, we address three related research questions in this work. First, we explore the optimal strength of the KL divergence constraint in DPO, which penalizes deviations from the reference policy, and find that DPO is sensitive to this strength. Next, we examine the necessity of the KL-constraint from the reference policies in DPO by providing both theoretical and empirical comparisons between DPO and related learning objectives, demonstrating DPO's superiority in this controlled setting. Additionally, we investigate whether DPO benefits from stronger reference policies, finding that a stronger reference policy can lead to improved performance, but only when it is similar to the model being fine-tuned. Our findings highlight the confounding role of reference policies in DPO and offer insights for best practices, while also identifying open research questions for future studies.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code

Despite Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 achieving impressive results in function-level code generation, they struggle with repository-scale code understanding (e.g., coming up with the right arguments for calling routines), requiring a deeper comprehension of complex file interactions. Also, recently, people have developed LLM agents that attempt to interact with repository code (e.g., compiling and evaluating its execution), prompting the need to evaluate their performance. These gaps have motivated our development of ML-Bench, a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. Addressing the need for LLMs to interpret long code contexts and translate instructions into precise, executable scripts, ML-Bench encompasses annotated 9,641 examples across 18 GitHub repositories, challenging LLMs to accommodate user-specified arguments and documentation intricacies effectively. To evaluate both LLMs and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4o leads with a Pass@5 rate surpassing 50%, there remains significant scope for improvement, highlighted by issues such as hallucinated outputs and difficulties with bash script generation. Notably, in the more demanding ML-Agent-Bench, GPT-4o achieves a 76.47% success rate, reflecting the efficacy of iterative action and feedback in complex task resolution. Our code, dataset, and models are available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/ML-bench.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

DocMath-Eval: Evaluating Math Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs in Understanding Long and Specialized Documents

Recent LLMs have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving exam-like math word problems. However, the degree to which these numerical reasoning skills are effective in real-world scenarios, particularly in expert domains, is still largely unexplored. This paper introduces DocMath-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the numerical reasoning capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing specialized documents containing both text and tables. We conduct an extensive evaluation of 48 LLMs with Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods, aiming to comprehensively assess the capabilities and limitations of existing LLMs in DocMath-Eval. We found that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) still significantly lags behind human experts in solving complex numerical reasoning problems grounded in long contexts. We believe that DocMath-Eval can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in solving challenging numerical reasoning problems within expert domains.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FinanceMath: Knowledge-Intensive Math Reasoning in Finance Domains

We introduce FinanceMath, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capabilities in solving knowledge-intensive math reasoning problems. Compared to prior works, this study features three core advancements. First, FinanceMath includes 1,200 problems with a hybrid of textual and tabular content. These problems require college-level knowledge in the finance domain for effective resolution. Second, we provide expert-annotated, detailed solution references in Python program format, ensuring a high-quality benchmark for LLM assessment. We also construct a finance-domain knowledge bank and investigate various knowledge integration strategies. Finally, we evaluate a wide spectrum of 44 LLMs with both Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods. Our experimental results reveal that the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) achieves only 60.9% accuracy using CoT prompting, leaving substantial room for improvement. Moreover, while augmenting LLMs with external knowledge can improve model performance (e.g., from 47.5% to 54.5% for Gemini-1.5-Pro), their accuracy remains significantly lower than the estimated human expert performance of 92%. We believe that FinanceMath can advance future research in the area of domain-specific knowledge retrieval and integration, particularly within the context of solving reasoning-intensive tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses

With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake.

cs.CL↗