Long$^2$RAG: Evaluating Long-Context & Long-Form Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Key Point Recall

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a promising approach to address the limitations of fixed knowledge in large language models (LLMs). However, current benchmarks for evaluating RAG systems suffer from two key deficiencies: (1) they fail to adequately measure LLMs' capability in handling long-context retrieval due to a lack of datasets that reflect the characteristics of retrieved documents, and (2) they lack a comprehensive evaluation method for assessing LLMs' ability to generate long-form responses that effectively exploits retrieved information. To address these shortcomings, we introduce the Long$^2$RAG benchmark and the Key Point Recall (KPR) metric. Long$^2$RAG comprises 280 questions spanning 10 domains and across 8 question categories, each associated with 5 retrieved documents with an average length of 2,444 words. KPR evaluates the extent to which LLMs incorporate key points extracted from the retrieved documents into their generated responses, providing a more nuanced assessment of their ability to exploit retrieved information.

The Automated Verification of Textual Claims (AVeriTeC) Shared Task

The Automated Verification of Textual Claims (AVeriTeC) shared task asks participants to retrieve evidence and predict veracity for real-world claims checked by fact-checkers. Evidence can be found either via a search engine, or via a knowledge store provided by the organisers. Submissions are evaluated using AVeriTeC score, which considers a claim to be accurately verified if and only if both the verdict is correct and retrieved evidence is considered to meet a certain quality threshold. The shared task received 21 submissions, 18 of which surpassed our baseline. The winning team was TUDA_MAI with an AVeriTeC score of 63%. In this paper we describe the shared task, present the full results, and highlight key takeaways from the shared task.

Effi-Code: Unleashing Code Efficiency in Language Models

As the use of large language models (LLMs) for code generation becomes more prevalent in software development, it is critical to enhance both the efficiency and correctness of the generated code. Existing methods and models primarily focus on the correctness of LLM-generated code, ignoring efficiency. In this work, we present Effi-Code, an approach to enhancing code generation in LLMs that can improve both efficiency and correctness. We introduce a Self-Optimization process based on Overhead Profiling that leverages open-source LLMs to generate a high-quality dataset of correct and efficient code samples. This dataset is then used to fine-tune various LLMs. Our method involves the iterative refinement of generated code, guided by runtime performance metrics and correctness checks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that models fine-tuned on the Effi-Code show significant improvements in both code correctness and efficiency across task types. For example, the pass@1 of DeepSeek-Coder-6.7B-Instruct generated code increases from \textbf{43.3\%} to \textbf{76.8\%}, and the average execution time for the same correct tasks decreases by \textbf{30.5\%}. Effi-Code offers a scalable and generalizable approach to improving code generation in AI systems, with potential applications in software development, algorithm design, and computational problem-solving. The source code of Effi-Code was released in \url{https://github.com/huangd1999/Effi-Code}.

FormalAlign: Automated Alignment Evaluation for Autoformalization

Autoformalization aims to convert informal mathematical proofs into machine-verifiable formats, bridging the gap between natural and formal languages. However, ensuring semantic alignment between the informal and formalized statements remains challenging. Existing approaches heavily rely on manual verification, hindering scalability. To address this, we introduce \textsc{FormalAlign}, the first automated framework designed for evaluating the alignment between natural and formal languages in autoformalization. \textsc{FormalAlign} trains on both the autoformalization sequence generation task and the representational alignment between input and output, employing a dual loss that combines a pair of mutually enhancing autoformalization and alignment tasks. Evaluated across four benchmarks augmented by our proposed misalignment strategies, \textsc{FormalAlign} demonstrates superior performance. In our experiments, \textsc{FormalAlign} outperforms GPT-4, achieving an Alignment-Selection Score 11.58\% higher on \forml-Basic (99.21\% vs. 88.91\%) and 3.19\% higher on MiniF2F-Valid (66.39\% vs. 64.34\%). This effective alignment evaluation significantly reduces the need for manual verification. Both the dataset and code can be accessed via~\url{https://github.com/rookie-joe/FormalAlign}.

Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models

Recent research in Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown promising progress related to LLM alignment with human preferences. LLM-empowered decision-making systems are expected to be predictable, reliable and trustworthy, which implies being free from paradoxes or contradictions that could undermine their credibility and validity. However, LLMs still exhibit inconsistent and biased behaviour when making decisions or judgements. In this work, we focus on studying logical consistency of LLMs as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. Logical consistency ensures that decisions are based on a stable and coherent understanding of the problem, reducing the risk of erratic or contradictory outputs. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness. Additionally, we introduce a data refinement and augmentation technique that enhances the logical consistency of LLMs without sacrificing alignment to human preferences. It augments noisy and sparse pairwise-comparison annotations by estimating a partially or totally ordered preference rankings using rank aggregation methods. Finally, we show that logical consistency impacts the performance of LLM-based logic-dependent algorithms, where LLMs serve as logical operators.

UNComp: Uncertainty-Aware Long-Context Compressor for Efficient Large Language Model Inference

Deploying large language models (LLMs) is challenging due to their high memory and computational demands, especially during long-context inference. While key-value (KV) caching accelerates inference by reusing previously computed keys and values, it also introduces significant memory overhead. Existing KV cache compression methods such as eviction and merging typically compress the KV cache after it is generated and overlook the eviction of hidden states, failing to improve the speed of the prefilling stage. Additionally, applying a uniform compression rate across different attention heads can harm crucial retrieval heads in needle-in-a-haystack tasks due to excessive compression. In this paper, we propose UNComp, an uncertainty-aware compression scheme that leverages matrix entropy to estimate model uncertainty across layers and heads at the token sequence level. By grouping layers and heads based on their uncertainty, UNComp adaptively compresses both the hidden states and the KV cache. Our method achieves a 1.6x speedup in the prefilling stage and reduces the KV cache to 4.74% of its original size, resulting in a 6.4x increase in throughput and a 1.4x speedup in inference with only a 1.41% performance loss. Remarkably, in needle-in-a-haystack tasks, UNComp outperforms the full-size KV cache even when compressed to 9.38% of its original size. Our approach offers an efficient, training-free Grouped-Query Attention paradigm that can be seamlessly integrated into existing KV cache schemes.

Determine-Then-Ensemble: Necessity of Top-k Union for Large Language Model Ensembling

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit varying strengths and weaknesses across different tasks, prompting recent studies to explore the benefits of ensembling models to leverage their complementary advantages. However, existing LLM ensembling methods often overlook model compatibility and struggle with inefficient alignment of probabilities across the entire vocabulary. In this study, we empirically investigate the factors influencing ensemble performance, identifying model performance, vocabulary size, and response style as key determinants, revealing that compatibility among models is essential for effective ensembling. This analysis leads to the development of a simple yet effective model selection strategy that identifies compatible models. Additionally, we introduce the \textsc{Uni}on \textsc{T}op-$k$ \textsc{E}nsembling (\textsc{UniTE}), a novel approach that efficiently combines models by focusing on the union of the top-k tokens from each model, thereby avoiding the need for full vocabulary alignment and reducing computational overhead. Extensive evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that \textsc{UniTE} significantly enhances performance compared to existing methods, offering a more efficient framework for LLM ensembling.

Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models

Recent research in Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown promising progress related to LLM alignment with human preferences. LLM-empowered decision-making systems are expected to be predictable, reliable and trustworthy, which implies being free from paradoxes or contradictions that could undermine their credibility and validity. However, LLMs still exhibit inconsistent and biased behaviour when making decisions or judgements. In this work, we focus on studying logical consistency of LLMs as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. Logical consistency ensures that decisions are based on a stable and coherent understanding of the problem, reducing the risk of erratic or contradictory outputs. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness. Additionally, we introduce a data refinement and augmentation technique that enhances the logical consistency of LLMs without sacrificing alignment to human preferences. It augments noisy and sparse pairwise-comparison annotations by estimating a partially or totally ordered preference rankings using rank aggregation methods. Finally, we show that logical consistency impacts the performance of LLM-based logic-dependent algorithms, where LLMs serve as logical operators.

DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question's debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics align with human preferences and are stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 popular LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.

MR-BEN: A Comprehensive Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making, largely based on the step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning processes. However, it has been increasingly challenging to evaluate the reasoning capability of LLMs. Concretely, existing outcome-based benchmarks begin to saturate and become less sufficient to monitor the progress. To this end, we present a process-based benchmark MR-BEN that demands a meta reasoning skill, where LMs are asked to locate and analyse potential errors in automatically generated reasoning steps. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts, covering various subjects such as physics, chemistry, logic, coding, and more. Through our designed metrics for assessing meta-reasoning on this benchmark, we identify interesting limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs (open-source and closed-source models). For example, open-source models are seemingly comparable to GPT-4 on outcome-based benchmarks, but they lag far behind on our benchmark, revealing the underlying reasoning capability gap between them. Our dataset and codes are available on https://randolph-zeng.github.io/Mr-Ben.github.io/.