arXiv subjects

Yilun Zhao

Publications and source records attributed to Yilun Zhao.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

Towards Trustworthy LLMs for Code: A Data-Centric Synergistic Auditing Framework

LLM-powered coding and development assistants have become prevalent to programmers' workflows. However, concerns about the trustworthiness of LLMs for code persist despite their widespread use. Much of the existing research focused on either training or evaluation, raising questions about whether stakeholders in training and evaluation align in their understanding of model trustworthiness and whether they can move toward a unified direction. In this paper, we propose a vision for a unified trustworthiness auditing framework, DataTrust, which adopts a data-centric approach that synergistically emphasizes both training and evaluation data and their correlations. DataTrust aims to connect model trustworthiness indicators in evaluation with data quality indicators in training. It autonomously inspects training data and evaluates model trustworthiness using synthesized data, attributing potential causes from specific evaluation data to corresponding training data and refining indicator connections. Additionally, a trustworthiness arena powered by DataTrust will engage crowdsourced input and deliver quantitative outcomes. We outline the benefits that various stakeholders can gain from DataTrust and discuss the challenges and opportunities it presents.

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

Uncertainty of Thoughts: Uncertainty-Aware Planning Enhances Information Seeking in Large Language Models

In the face of uncertainty, the ability to *seek information* is of fundamental importance. In many practical applications, such as medical diagnosis and troubleshooting, the information needed to solve the task is not initially given and has to be actively sought by asking follow-up questions (for example, a doctor asking a patient for more details about their symptoms). In this work, we introduce Uncertainty of Thoughts (UoT), an algorithm to augment large language models with the ability to actively seek information by asking effective questions. UoT combines 1) an *uncertainty-aware simulation approach* which enables the model to simulate possible future scenarios and how likely they are to occur, 2) *uncertainty-based rewards* motivated by information gain which incentivizes the model to seek information, and 3) a *reward propagation scheme* to select the optimal question to ask in a way that maximizes the expected reward. In experiments on medical diagnosis, troubleshooting, and the `20 Questions` game, UoT achieves an average performance improvement of 38.1% in the rate of successful task completion across multiple LLMs compared with direct prompting and also improves efficiency (i.e., the number of questions needed to complete the task). Our code has been released [here](https://github.com/zhiyuanhubj/UoT)

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

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

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

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

SuperEncoder: Towards Universal Neural Approximate Quantum State Preparation

Numerous quantum algorithms operate under the assumption that classical data has already been converted into quantum states, a process termed Quantum State Preparation (QSP). However, achieving precise QSP requires a circuit depth that scales exponentially with the number of qubits, making it a substantial obstacle in harnessing quantum advantage. Recent research suggests using a Parameterized Quantum Circuit (PQC) to approximate a target state, offering a more scalable solution with reduced circuit depth compared to precise QSP. Despite this, the need for iterative updates of circuit parameters results in a lengthy runtime, limiting its practical application. In this work, we demonstrate that it is possible to leverage a pre-trained neural network to directly generate the QSP circuit for arbitrary quantum state, thereby eliminating the significant overhead of online iterations. Our study makes a steady step towards a universal neural designer for approximate QSP.

quant-ph↗

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↗

arXiv2024

Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization

While large language models (LLMs) can already achieve strong performance on standard generic summarization benchmarks, their performance on more complex summarization task settings is less studied. Therefore, we benchmark LLMs on instruction controllable text summarization, where the model input consists of both a source article and a natural language requirement for desired summary characteristics. To this end, we curate an evaluation-only dataset for this task setting and conduct human evaluations of five LLM-based systems to assess their instruction-following capabilities in controllable summarization. We then benchmark LLM-based automatic evaluation for this task with 4 different evaluation protocols and 11 LLMs, resulting in 40 evaluation methods. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs, since (1) all LLMs evaluated still make factual and other types of errors in their summaries; (2) no LLM-based evaluation methods can achieve a strong alignment with human annotators when judging the quality of candidate summaries; (3) different LLMs show large performance gaps in summary generation and evaluation capabilities. We make our collected benchmark InstruSum publicly available to facilitate future research in this direction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Step-Back Profiling: Distilling User History for Personalized Scientific Writing

Large language models (LLM) excel at a variety of natural language processing tasks, yet they struggle to generate personalized content for individuals, particularly in real-world scenarios like scientific writing. Addressing this challenge, we introduce STEP-BACK PROFILING to personalize LLMs by distilling user history into concise profiles, including essential traits and preferences of users. To conduct the experiments, we construct a Personalized Scientific Writing (PSW) dataset to study multi-user personalization. PSW requires the models to write scientific papers given specialized author groups with diverse academic backgrounds. As for the results, we demonstrate the effectiveness of capturing user characteristics via STEP-BACK PROFILING for collaborative writing. Moreover, our approach outperforms the baselines by up to 3.6 points on the general personalization benchmark (LaMP), including 7 personalization LLM tasks. Our ablation studies validate the contributions of different components in our method and provide insights into our task definition. Our dataset and code are available at \url{https://github.com/gersteinlab/step-back-profiling}.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Unveiling the Spectrum of Data Contamination in Language Models: A Survey from Detection to Remediation

Data contamination has garnered increased attention in the era of large language models (LLMs) due to the reliance on extensive internet-derived training corpora. The issue of training corpus overlap with evaluation benchmarks--referred to as contamination--has been the focus of significant recent research. This body of work aims to identify contamination, understand its impacts, and explore mitigation strategies from diverse perspectives. However, comprehensive studies that provide a clear pathway from foundational concepts to advanced insights are lacking in this nascent field. Therefore, we present a comprehensive survey in the field of data contamination, laying out the key issues, methodologies, and findings to date, and highlighting areas in need of further research and development. In particular, we begin by examining the effects of data contamination across various stages and forms. We then provide a detailed analysis of current contamination detection methods, categorizing them to highlight their focus, assumptions, strengths, and limitations. We also discuss mitigation strategies, offering a clear guide for future research. This survey serves as a succinct overview of the most recent advancements in data contamination research, providing a straightforward guide for the benefit of future research endeavors.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs), despite their remarkable progress across various general domains, encounter significant barriers in medicine and healthcare. This field faces unique challenges such as domain-specific terminologies and reasoning over specialized knowledge. To address these issues, we propose MedAgents, a novel multi-disciplinary collaboration framework for the medical domain. MedAgents leverages LLM-based agents in a role-playing setting that participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion, thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities. This training-free framework encompasses five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision. Our work focuses on the zero-shot setting, which is applicable in real-world scenarios. Experimental results on nine datasets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MedAgents framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise within LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities. Our code can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/MedAgents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Struc-Bench: Are Large Language Models Really Good at Generating Complex Structured Data?

Despite the remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, producing complex, structured tabular data remains challenging. Our study assesses LLMs' proficiency in structuring tables and introduces a novel fine-tuning method, cognizant of data structures, to bolster their performance. We unveil Struc-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring prominent LLMs (GPT-NeoX-20B, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Vicuna), which spans text tables, HTML, and LaTeX formats. Our proposed FormatCoT aids in crafting format-specific instructions from the intended outputs to populate this benchmark. Addressing the gap in task-centered evaluation, we propose two innovative metrics, P-Score (Prompting Score) and H-Score (Heuristical Score), to more accurately gauge LLM performance. Our experiments show that applying our structure-aware fine-tuning to LLaMA-7B leads to substantial performance gains, outshining its LLM counterparts across most measures. In-depth error analysis and creating an ability map across six dimensions -- coverage, formatting, reasoning, comprehension, pragmatics, and hallucination -- highlight areas for future enhancements and suggest forthcoming research trajectories. Our code and models can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/Struc-Bench.

cs.CL↗