DOCBENCH: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Document Reading Systems

Recently, there has been a growing interest among large language model (LLM) developers in LLM-based document reading systems, which enable users to upload their own documents and pose questions related to the document contents, going beyond simple reading comprehension tasks. Consequently, these systems have been carefully designed to tackle challenges such as file parsing, metadata extraction, multi-modal information understanding and long-context reading. However, no current benchmark exists to evaluate their performance in such scenarios, where a raw file and questions are provided as input, and a corresponding response is expected as output. In this paper, we introduce DocBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate LLM-based document reading systems. Our benchmark involves a meticulously crafted process, including the recruitment of human annotators and the generation of synthetic questions. It includes 229 real documents and 1,102 questions, spanning across five different domains and four major types of questions. We evaluate both proprietary LLM-based systems accessible via web interfaces or APIs, and a parse-then-read pipeline employing open-source LLMs. Our evaluations reveal noticeable gaps between existing LLM-based document reading systems and human performance, underscoring the challenges of developing proficient systems. To summarize, DocBench aims to establish a standardized benchmark for evaluating LLM-based document reading systems under diverse real-world scenarios, thereby guiding future advancements in this research area.

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 the reasoning over specialized knowledge. To address these obstinate issues, we propose a novel Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework for the medical domain that leverages role-playing LLM-based agents who participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion, thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities. This training-free and interpretable 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 particularly focuses on the zero-shot scenario, our results on nine data sets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MC framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise in LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities. Based on these outcomes, we further conduct a human evaluation to pinpoint and categorize common errors within our method, as well as ablation studies aimed at understanding the impact of various factors on overall performance. Our code can be found at \url{https://github.com/gersteinlab/MedAgents}.

Meta-CoT: Generalizable Chain-of-Thought Prompting in Mixed-task Scenarios with Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have unveiled remarkable reasoning capabilities by exploiting chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, which generates intermediate reasoning chains to serve as the rationale for deriving the answer. However, current CoT methods either simply employ general prompts such as Let's think step by step, or heavily rely on handcrafted task-specific demonstrations to attain preferable performances, thereby engendering an inescapable gap between performance and generalization. To bridge this gap, we propose Meta-CoT, a generalizable CoT prompting method in mixed-task scenarios where the type of input questions is unknown. Meta-CoT firstly categorizes the scenario based on the input question and subsequently constructs diverse demonstrations from the corresponding data pool in an automatic pattern. Meta-CoT simultaneously enjoys remarkable performances on ten public benchmark reasoning tasks and superior generalization capabilities. Notably, Meta-CoT achieves the state-of-the-art result on SVAMP (93.7%) without any additional program-aided methods. Our further experiments on five out-of-distribution datasets verify the stability and generality of Meta-CoT.

Decker: Double Check with Heterogeneous Knowledge for Commonsense Fact Verification

Commonsense fact verification, as a challenging branch of commonsense question-answering (QA), aims to verify through facts whether a given commonsense claim is correct or not. Answering commonsense questions necessitates a combination of knowledge from various levels. However, existing studies primarily rest on grasping either unstructured evidence or potential reasoning paths from structured knowledge bases, yet failing to exploit the benefits of heterogeneous knowledge simultaneously. In light of this, we propose Decker, a commonsense fact verification model that is capable of bridging heterogeneous knowledge by uncovering latent relationships between structured and unstructured knowledge. Experimental results on two commonsense fact verification benchmark datasets, CSQA2.0 and CREAK demonstrate the effectiveness of our Decker and further analysis verifies its capability to seize more precious information through reasoning.