The need for large text corpora has increased with the advent of pretrained language models and, in particular, the discovery of scaling laws for these models. Most available corpora have sufficient data only for languages with large dominant communities. However, there is no corpus available that (i) covers a wide range of minority languages; (ii) is generated by an open-source reproducible pipeline; and (iii) is rigorously cleaned from noise, making it trustworthy to use. We present GlotCC, a clean, document-level, 2TB general domain corpus derived from CommonCrawl, covering more than 1000 languages. We make GlotCC and the system used to generate it-- including the pipeline, language identification model, and filters--available to the research community.

Expert-designed close-ended benchmarks are indispensable in assessing the knowledge capacity of large language models (LLMs). Despite their widespread use, concerns have mounted regarding their reliability due to limited test scenarios and an unavoidable risk of data contamination. To rectify this, we present PertEval, a toolkit devised for in-depth probing of LLMs' knowledge capacity through knowledge-invariant perturbations. These perturbations employ human-like restatement techniques to generate on-the-fly test samples from static benchmarks, meticulously retaining knowledge-critical content while altering irrelevant details. Our toolkit further includes a suite of response consistency analyses that compare performance on raw vs. perturbed test sets to precisely assess LLMs' genuine knowledge capacity.

With the widespread application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to various domains, concerns regarding the trustworthiness of LLMs in safety-critical scenarios have been raised, due to their unpredictable tendency to hallucinate and generate misinformation. Existing LLMs do not have an inherent functionality to provide the users with an uncertainty/confidence metric for each response it generates, making it difficult to evaluate trustworthiness. Although several studies aim to develop uncertainty quantification methods for LLMs, they have fundamental limitations, such as being restricted to classification tasks, requiring additional training and data, considering only lexical instead of semantic information, and being prompt-wise but not response-wise. A new framework is proposed in this paper to address these issues.

The notable success of large language models (LLMs) has sparked an upsurge in building language agents to complete various complex tasks.

Chart understanding plays a pivotal role when applying Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to real-world tasks such as analyzing scientific papers or financial reports. However, existing datasets often focus on oversimplified and homogeneous charts with template-based questions, leading to an overly optimistic measure of progress. We demonstrate that although open-source models can appear to outperform strong proprietary models on these benchmarks, a simple stress test with slightly different charts or questions can deteriorate performance by up to 34.5%. In this work, we propose CharXiv, a comprehensive evaluation suite involving 2,323 natural, challenging, and diverse charts from arXiv papers. CharXiv includes two types of questions: 1) descriptive questions about examining basic chart elements and 2) reasoning questions that require synthesizing information across complex visual elements in the chart. To ensure quality, all charts and questions are handpicked, curated, and verified by human experts. Our results reveal a substantial, previously underestimated gap between the reasoning skills of the strongest proprietary model (i.e., GPT-4o), which achieves 47.1% accuracy, and the strongest open-source model (i.e., InternVL Chat V1.5), which achieves 29.2%. All models lag far behind human performance of 80.5%, underscoring weaknesses in the chart understanding capabilities of existing MLLMs. We hope that CharXiv facilitates future research on MLLM chart understanding by providing a more realistic and faithful measure of progress.

Transformer based large-language models (LLMs) display extreme proficiency with language yet a precise understanding of how they work remains elusive. One way of demystifying transformer predictions would be to describe how they depend on their context in terms of simple template functions. This paper takes a first step in this direction by considering families of functions (i.e.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for knowledge-seeking purposes yet suffer from hallucinations. The knowledge boundary of an LLM limits its factual understanding, beyond which it may begin to hallucinate. Investigating the perception of LLMs' knowledge boundary is crucial for detecting hallucinations and LLMs' reliable generation. Current studies perceive LLMs' knowledge boundary on questions with concrete answers (close-ended questions) while paying limited attention to semi-open-ended questions that correspond to many potential answers. Some researchers achieve it by judging whether the question is answerable or not. However, this paradigm is not so suitable for semi-open-ended questions, which are usually "partially answerable questions" containing both answerable answers and ambiguous (unanswerable) answers.

Large language models (LLMs) often hallucinate and lack the ability to provide attribution for their generations. Semi-parametric LMs, such as kNN-LM, approach these limitations by refining the output of an LM for a given prompt using its nearest neighbor matches in a non-parametric data store. However, these models often exhibit slow inference speeds and produce non-fluent texts.

Although humans inherently have diverse values, current large language model (LLM) alignment methods often assume that aligning LLMs with the general public's preferences is optimal. A major challenge in adopting a more individualized approach to LLM alignment is its lack of scalability, as it involves repeatedly acquiring preference data and training new reward models and LLMs for each individual's preferences. To address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm where users specify what they value most within the system message, steering the LLM's generation behavior to better align with the user's intentions. However, a naive application of such an approach is non-trivial since LLMs are typically trained on a uniform system message (e.g., "You are a helpful assistant"), which limits their ability to generalize to diverse, unseen system messages.