How Robust are the Tabular QA Models for Scientific Tables? A Study using Customized Dataset

Question-answering (QA) on hybrid scientific tabular and textual data deals with scientific information, and relies on complex numerical reasoning. In recent years, while tabular QA has seen rapid progress, understanding their robustness on scientific information is lacking due to absence of any benchmark dataset. To investigate the robustness of the existing state-of-the-art QA models on scientific hybrid tabular data, we propose a new dataset, "SciTabQA", consisting of 822 question-answer pairs from scientific tables and their descriptions. With the help of this dataset, we assess the state-of-the-art Tabular QA models based on their ability (i) to use heterogeneous information requiring both structured data (table) and unstructured data (text) and (ii) to perform complex scientific reasoning tasks. In essence, we check the capability of the models to interpret scientific tables and text. Our experiments show that "SciTabQA" is an innovative dataset to study question-answering over scientific heterogeneous data. We benchmark three state-of-the-art Tabular QA models, and find that the best F1 score is only 0.462.

Remember This Event That Year? Assessing Temporal Information and Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, yet their ability to reason about and retain temporal information remains limited. This hinders their application in real-world scenarios where understanding the sequential nature of events is crucial. This paper experiments with state-of-the-art models on a novel, large-scale temporal dataset, \textbf{TempUN}, to reveal significant limitations in temporal retention and reasoning abilities. Interestingly, closed-source models indicate knowledge gaps more frequently, potentially suggesting a trade-off between uncertainty awareness and incorrect responses. Further, exploring various fine-tuning approaches yielded no major performance improvements. The associated dataset and code are available at the following URL (https://github.com/lingoiitgn/TempUN).

Cross-lingual Editing in Multilingual Language Models

The training of large language models (LLMs) necessitates substantial data and computational resources, and updating outdated LLMs entails significant efforts and resources. While numerous model editing techniques (METs) have emerged to efficiently update model outputs without retraining, their effectiveness in multilingual LLMs, where knowledge is stored in diverse languages, remains an underexplored research area. This research paper introduces the cross-lingual model editing (\textbf{XME}) paradigm, wherein a fact is edited in one language, and the subsequent update propagation is observed across other languages. To investigate the XME paradigm, we conducted experiments using BLOOM, mBERT, and XLM-RoBERTa using the two writing scripts: \textit{Latin} (English, French, and Spanish) and \textit{Indic} (Hindi, Gujarati, and Bengali). The results reveal notable performance limitations of state-of-the-art METs under the XME setting, mainly when the languages involved belong to two distinct script families. These findings highlight the need for further research and development of XME techniques to address these challenges. For more comprehensive information, the dataset used in this research and the associated code are publicly available at the following URL\url{https://github.com/lingo-iitgn/XME}.

LEGOBench: Leaderboard Generation Benchmark for Scientific Models

The ever-increasing volume of paper submissions makes it difficult to stay informed about the latest state-of-the-art research. To address this challenge, we introduce LEGOBench, a benchmark for evaluating systems that generate leaderboards. LEGOBench is curated from 22 years of preprint submission data in arXiv and more than 11,000 machine learning leaderboards in the PapersWithCode portal. We evaluate the performance of four traditional graph-based ranking variants and three recently proposed large language models. Our preliminary results show significant performance gaps in automatic leaderboard generation. The code is available on https://github.com/lingo-iitgn/LEGOBench and the dataset is hosted on https://osf.io/9v2py/?view_only=6f91b0b510df498ba01595f8f278f94c .

Boldly Going Where No Benchmark Has Gone Before: Exposing Bias and Shortcomings in Code Generation Evaluation

Motivated by the increasing popularity of code generation from human descriptions using large language models (LLMs), several benchmarks have been proposed to assess the capabilities of existing and emerging models. This study presents a large-scale human evaluation of HumanEval and MBPP, two widely used benchmarks for Python code generation, focusing on their diversity and difficulty. Our findings reveal a significant bias towards a limited number of programming concepts, with negligible or no representation of most concepts. Additionally, we identify a concerningly high proportion of easy programming questions, potentially leading to an overestimation of model performance on code generation tasks.

Unveiling the Multi-Annotation Process: Examining the Influence of Annotation Quantity and Instance Difficulty on Model Performance

The NLP community has long advocated for the construction of multi-annotator datasets to better capture the nuances of language interpretation, subjectivity, and ambiguity. This paper conducts a retrospective study to show how performance scores can vary when a dataset expands from a single annotation per instance to multiple annotations. We propose a novel multi-annotator simulation process to generate datasets with varying annotation budgets. We show that similar datasets with the same annotation budget can lead to varying performance gains. Our findings challenge the popular belief that models trained on multi-annotation examples always lead to better performance than models trained on single or few-annotation examples.

Unlocking Model Insights: A Dataset for Automated Model Card Generation

Language models (LMs) are no longer restricted to ML community, and instruction-tuned LMs have led to a rise in autonomous AI agents. As the accessibility of LMs grows, it is imperative that an understanding of their capabilities, intended usage, and development cycle also improves. Model cards are a popular practice for documenting detailed information about an ML model. To automate model card generation, we introduce a dataset of 500 question-answer pairs for 25 ML models that cover crucial aspects of the model, such as its training configurations, datasets, biases, architecture details, and training resources. We employ annotators to extract the answers from the original paper. Further, we explore the capabilities of LMs in generating model cards by answering questions. Our initial experiments with ChatGPT-3.5, LLaMa, and Galactica showcase a significant gap in the understanding of research papers by these aforementioned LMs as well as generating factual textual responses. We posit that our dataset can be used to train models to automate the generation of model cards from paper text and reduce human effort in the model card curation process. The complete dataset is available on https://osf.io/hqt7p/?view_only=3b9114e3904c4443bcd9f5c270158d37

Modeling interdisciplinary interactions among Physics, Mathematics & Computer Science

Interdisciplinarity has over the recent years have gained tremendous importance and has become one of the key ways of doing cutting edge research. In this paper we attempt to model the citation flow across three different fields -- Physics (PHY), Mathematics (MA) and Computer Science (CS). For instance, is there a specific pattern in which these fields cite one another? We carry out experiments on a dataset comprising more than 1.2 million articles taken from these three fields. We quantify the citation interactions among these three fields through temporal bucket signatures. We present numerical models based on variants of the recently proposed relay-linking framework to explain the citation dynamics across the three disciplines. These models make a modest attempt to unfold the underlying principles of how citation links could have been formed across the three fields over time.

Metric@CustomerN: Evaluating Metrics at a Customer Level in E-Commerce

Accuracy measures such as Recall, Precision, and Hit Rate have been a standard way of evaluating Recommendation Systems. The assumption is to use a fixed Top-N to represent them. We propose that median impressions viewed from historical sessions per diner be used as a personalized value for N. We present preliminary exploratory results and list future steps to improve upon and evaluate the efficacy of these personalized metrics.