arXiv subjects

Jong Inn Park

Publications and source records attributed to Jong Inn Park.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Strong Memory, Weak Control: An Empirical Study of Executive Functioning in LLMs

Working memory, or the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind, is a critical component of human intelligence and executive functioning. It is correlated with performance on various cognitive tasks, including measures of fluid intelligence, which encompasses reasoning and problem solving. We use a comprehensive set of classic working memory tasks to estimate the working memory capacity of large language models (LLMs). We find that in most cases, LLMs exceed normative human scores. However, we do not find that the increased capacity of working memory is associated with higher performance on other executive functioning tasks or problem solving benchmarks. These results suggest that LLMs may have deficits in attentional control and cognitive flexibility, which result in difficulties with inhibiting automatic responses and adapting to shifting information. Our findings suggest that current reasoning models have mixed results in compensating for these deficits.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question. In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner. Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives. These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding. Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Stealing Creator's Workflow: A Creator-Inspired Agentic Framework with Iterative Feedback Loop for Improved Scientific Short-form Generation

Generating engaging, accurate short-form videos from scientific papers is challenging due to content complexity and the gap between expert authors and readers. Existing end-to-end methods often suffer from factual inaccuracies and visual artifacts, limiting their utility for scientific dissemination. To address these issues, we propose SciTalk, a novel multi-LLM agentic framework, grounding videos in various sources, such as text, figures, visual styles, and avatars. Inspired by content creators' workflows, SciTalk uses specialized agents for content summarization, visual scene planning, and text and layout editing, and incorporates an iterative feedback mechanism where video agents simulate user roles to give feedback on generated videos from previous iterations and refine generation prompts. Experimental evaluations show that SciTalk outperforms simple prompting methods in generating scientifically accurate and engaging content over the refined loop of video generation. Although preliminary results are still not yet matching human creators' quality, our framework provides valuable insights into the challenges and benefits of feedback-driven video generation. Our code, data, and generated videos will be publicly available.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators

Large Language Models are cognitively biased judges. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

SelectLLM: Can LLMs Select Important Instructions to Annotate?

Instruction tuning benefits from large and diverse datasets; however, creating such datasets involves a high cost of human labeling. While synthetic datasets generated by large language models (LLMs) have partly solved this issue, they often contain low-quality data. One effective solution is selectively annotating unlabelled instructions, especially given the relative ease of acquiring unlabeled instructions or texts from various sources. However, how to select unlabelled instructions is not well-explored, especially in the context of LLMs. Therefore, we introduce SelectLLM, an alternative framework that leverages the capabilities of LLMs to select unlabeled instructions more effectively. Specifically, SelectLLM consists of two key steps: Coreset-based clustering of unlabelled instructions for enlarging diversity and prompting of LLM to identify the most beneficial instructions within each cluster. We evaluate SelectLLM on AlpacaEval2 and MT-Bench, demonstrating its ability to outperform state-of-the-art methods like Alpagasus. In addition, we compare the performance and compatibility of SelectLLM with various LLMs, such as ChatGPT, LLaMA-3.1-70B, and Gemma-2-27b. SelectLLM's adaptability and robustness are further evidenced by its ability to maintain high performance across both human and synthetic datasets. All code and data are publicly available (https://github.com/minnesotanlp/select-llm).

cs.CL↗