MTR-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multi-Turn Reasoning Evaluation

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in complex reasoning tasks. However, current evaluations predominantly focus on single-turn reasoning scenarios, leaving interactive tasks largely unexplored. We attribute it to the absence of comprehensive datasets and scalable automatic evaluation protocols. To fill these gaps, we present MTR-Bench for LLMs' Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation. Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks, and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities, fine-grained difficulty granularity, and necessitates multi-turn interactions with the environments. Moreover, MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations, which enables scalable assessment without human interventions. Extensive experiments reveal that even the cutting-edge reasoning models fall short of multi-turn, interactive reasoning tasks. And the further analysis upon these results brings valuable insights for future research in interactive AI systems.

Assistant-Guided Mitigation of Teacher Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM-as-a-Judge employs large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, to evaluate the quality of LLM-generated responses, gaining popularity for its cost-effectiveness and strong alignment with human evaluations. However, training proxy judge models using evaluation data generated by powerful teacher models introduces a critical yet previously overlooked issue: teacher preference bias, where the proxy judge model learns a biased preference for responses from the teacher model. To tackle this problem, we propose a novel setting that incorporates an additional assistant model, which is not biased toward the teacher model's responses, to complement the training data. Building on this setup, we introduce AGDe-Judge, a three-stage framework designed to debias from both the labels and feedbacks in the training data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AGDe-Judge effectively reduces teacher preference bias while maintaining strong performance across six evaluation benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/Liuz233/AGDe-Judge.

Self-Improvement Towards Pareto Optimality: Mitigating Preference Conflicts in Multi-Objective Alignment

Multi-Objective Alignment (MOA) aims to align LLMs' responses with multiple human preference objectives, with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) emerging as a prominent approach. However, we find that DPO-based MOA approaches suffer from widespread preference conflicts in the data, where different objectives favor different responses. This results in conflicting optimization directions, hindering the optimization on the Pareto Front. To address this, we propose to construct Pareto-optimal responses to resolve preference conflicts. To efficiently obtain and utilize such responses, we propose a self-improving DPO framework that enables LLMs to self-generate and select Pareto-optimal responses for self-supervised preference alignment. Extensive experiments on two datasets demonstrate the superior Pareto Front achieved by our framework compared to various baselines. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/zyttt-coder/SIPO}.

HellaSwag-Pro: A Large-Scale Bilingual Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs in Commonsense Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in commonsense reasoning; however, some variations in questions can trigger incorrect responses. Do these models truly understand commonsense knowledge, or just memorize expression patterns? To investigate this question, we present the first extensive robustness evaluation of LLMs in commonsense reasoning. We introduce HellaSwag-Pro, a large-scale bilingual benchmark consisting of 11,200 cases, by designing and compiling seven types of question variants. To construct this benchmark, we propose a two-stage method to develop Chinese HellaSwag, a finely annotated dataset comprising 12,000 instances across 56 categories. We conduct extensive experiments on 41 representative LLMs, revealing that these LLMs are far from robust in commonsense reasoning. Furthermore, this robustness varies depending on the language in which the LLM is tested. This work establishes a high-quality evaluation benchmark, with extensive experiments offering valuable insights to the community in commonsense reasoning for LLMs.

Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models: A Survey

Although large language models (LLMs) store vast amount of knowledge in their parameters, they still have limitations in the memorization and utilization of certain knowledge, leading to undesired behaviors such as generating untruthful and inaccurate responses. This highlights the critical need to understand the knowledge boundary of LLMs, a concept that remains inadequately defined in existing research. In this survey, we propose a comprehensive definition of the LLM knowledge boundary and introduce a formalized taxonomy categorizing knowledge into four distinct types. Using this foundation, we systematically review the field through three key lenses: the motivation for studying LLM knowledge boundaries, methods for identifying these boundaries, and strategies for mitigating the challenges they present. Finally, we discuss open challenges and potential research directions in this area. We aim for this survey to offer the community a comprehensive overview, facilitate access to key issues, and inspire further advancements in LLM knowledge research.

Dual-Phase Accelerated Prompt Optimization

Gradient-free prompt optimization methods have made significant strides in enhancing the performance of closed-source Large Language Models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks. However, existing approaches make light of the importance of high-quality prompt initialization and the identification of effective optimization directions, thus resulting in substantial optimization steps to obtain satisfactory performance. In this light, we aim to accelerate prompt optimization process to tackle the challenge of low convergence rate. We propose a dual-phase approach which starts with generating high-quality initial prompts by adopting a well-designed meta-instruction to delve into task-specific information, and iteratively optimize the prompts at the sentence level, leveraging previous tuning experience to expand prompt candidates and accept effective ones. Extensive experiments on eight datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method, achieving a consistent accuracy gain over baselines with less than five optimization steps.

Counterfactual Debating with Preset Stances for Hallucination Elimination of LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various natural language processing tasks but struggle with hallucination issues. Existing solutions have considered utilizing LLMs' inherent reasoning abilities to alleviate hallucination, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. However, these methods often overtrust LLMs' initial answers due to inherent biases. The key to alleviating this issue lies in overriding LLMs' inherent biases for answer inspection. To this end, we propose a CounterFactual Multi-Agent Debate (CFMAD) framework. CFMAD presets the stances of LLMs to override their inherent biases by compelling LLMs to generate justifications for a predetermined answer's correctness. The LLMs with different predetermined stances are engaged with a skeptical critic for counterfactual debate on the rationality of generated justifications. Finally, the debate process is evaluated by a third-party judge to determine the final answer. Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of CFMAD over existing methods.

Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the realm of mathematical reasoning necessitates comprehensive evaluations to gauge progress and inspire future directions. Existing assessments predominantly focus on problem-solving from the examinee perspective, overlooking a dual perspective of examiner regarding error identification and correction. From the examiner perspective, we define four evaluation tasks for error identification and correction along with a new dataset with annotated error types and steps. We also design diverse prompts to thoroughly evaluate eleven representative LLMs. Our principal findings indicate that GPT-4 outperforms all models, while open-source model LLaMA-2-7B demonstrates comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro. Notably, calculation error proves the most challenging error type. Moreover, prompting LLMs with the error types can improve the average correction accuracy by 47.9\%. These results reveal potential directions for developing the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our code and dataset is available on https://github.com/LittleCirc1e/EIC.

Think Twice Before Assure: Confidence Estimation for Large Language Models through Reflection on Multiple Answers

Confidence estimation aiming to evaluate output trustability is crucial for the application of large language models (LLM), especially the black-box ones. Existing confidence estimation of LLM is typically not calibrated due to the overconfidence of LLM on its generated incorrect answers. Existing approaches addressing the overconfidence issue are hindered by a significant limitation that they merely consider the confidence of one answer generated by LLM. To tackle this limitation, we propose a novel paradigm that thoroughly evaluates the trustability of multiple candidate answers to mitigate the overconfidence on incorrect answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each answer, and then aggregates the justifications for comprehensive confidence estimation. This framework can be integrated with existing confidence estimation approaches for superior calibration. Experimental results on six datasets of three tasks demonstrate the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Gotcha! Don't trick me with unanswerable questions! Self-aligning Large Language Models for Responding to Unknown Questions

Despite the remarkable abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to answer questions, they often display a considerable level of overconfidence even when the question does not have a definitive answer. To avoid providing hallucinated answers to these unknown questions, existing studies typically investigate approaches to refusing to answer these questions. In this work, we propose a novel and scalable self-alignment method to utilize the LLM itself to enhance its response-ability to different types of unknown questions, being capable of not only refusing to answer but also providing explanation to the unanswerability of unknown questions. Specifically, the Self-Align method first employ a two-stage class-aware self-augmentation approach to generate a large amount of unknown question-response data. Then we conduct disparity-driven self-curation to select qualified data for fine-tuning the LLM itself for aligning the responses to unknown questions as desired. Experimental results on two datasets across four types of unknown questions validate the superiority of the Self-Align method over existing baselines in terms of three types of task formulation.