Leveraging Structured Information for Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering and Reasoning

Neural models, including large language models (LLMs), achieve superior performance on multi-hop question-answering. To elicit reasoning capabilities from LLMs, recent works propose using the chain-of-thought (CoT) mechanism to generate both the reasoning chain and the answer, which enhances the model's capabilities in conducting multi-hop reasoning. However, several challenges still remain: such as struggling with inaccurate reasoning, hallucinations, and lack of interpretability. On the other hand, information extraction (IE) identifies entities, relations, and events grounded to the text. The extracted structured information can be easily interpreted by humans and machines (Grishman, 2019). In this work, we investigate constructing and leveraging extracted semantic structures (graphs) for multi-hop question answering, especially the reasoning process. Empirical results and human evaluations show that our framework: generates more faithful reasoning chains and substantially improves the QA performance on two benchmark datasets. Moreover, the extracted structures themselves naturally provide grounded explanations that are preferred by humans, as compared to the generated reasoning chains and saliency-based explanations.

FAITHSCORE: Evaluating Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models

We introduce FAITHSCORE (Faithfulness to Atomic Image Facts Score), a reference-free and fine-grained evaluation metric that measures the faithfulness of the generated free-form answers from large vision-language models (LVLMs). The FAITHSCORE evaluation first identifies sub-sentences containing descriptive statements that need to be verified, then extracts a comprehensive list of atomic facts from these sub-sentences, and finally conducts consistency verification between fine-grained atomic facts and the input image. Meta-evaluation demonstrates that our metric highly correlates with human judgments of faithfulness. We collect two benchmark datasets (i.e. LLaVA-1k and MSCOCO-Cap) for evaluating LVLMs instruction-following hallucinations. We measure hallucinations in state-of-the-art LVLMs with FAITHSCORE on the datasets. Results reveal that current systems are prone to generate hallucinated content unfaithful to the image, which leaves room for future improvements. Further, we find that current LVLMs despite doing well on color and counting, still struggle with long answers, relations, and multiple objects.

PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.