Recent LLMs have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving exam-like math word problems. However, the degree to which these numerical reasoning skills are effective in real-world scenarios, particularly in expert domains, is still largely unexplored. This paper introduces DocMath-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the numerical reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing financial documents containing both text and tables. We evaluate a wide spectrum of 19 LLMs, including those specialized in coding and finance. We also incorporate different prompting strategies (i.e., Chain-of-Thoughts and Program-of-Thoughts) to comprehensively assess the capabilities and limitations of existing LLMs in DocMath-Eval. We found that, although the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4), can perform well on simple problems such as calculating the rate of increase in a financial metric within a short document context, it significantly lags behind human experts in more complex problems grounded in longer contexts. We believe DocMath-Eval can be used as a valuable benchmark to evaluate LLMs' capabilities to solve challenging numerical reasoning problems in expert domains. We will release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/yale-nlp/DocMath-Eval.

Though prompting LLMs with various reasoning structures produces reasoning proofs along with answers, these proofs are not ensured to be causal and reliable due to the inherent defects of LLMs. Tracking such deficiencies, we present a neuro-symbolic integration method, in which a neural LLM is used to represent the knowledge of the problem while an LLM-free symbolic solver is adopted to do deliberative reasoning using the knowledge. Specifically, our customized meta-interpreters allow the production of reasoning proofs and support flexible search strategies. These reasoning proofs are ensured to be causal and reliable because of the deterministic executing nature of the symbolic solvers. Empirically, on ProofWriter, our method surpasses the CoT baseline by nearly double in accuracy and more than triple in proof similarity. On GSM8K, our method also shows accuracy improvements and nearly doubled proof similarity. Our code is released at https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/CaRing

Factuality is a crucial requirement in information seeking dialogue: the system should respond to the user's queries so that the responses are meaningful and aligned with the knowledge provided to the system. However, most modern large language models suffer from hallucinations, that is, they generate responses not supported by or contradicting the knowledge source. To mitigate the issue and increase faithfulness of information-seeking dialogue systems, we introduce BeInfo, a simple yet effective method that applies behavioural tuning to aid information-seeking dialogue. Relying on three standard datasets, we show that models tuned with BeInfo} become considerably more faithful to the knowledge source both for datasets and domains seen during BeInfo-tuning, as well as on unseen domains, when applied in a zero-shot manner. In addition, we show that the models with 3B parameters (e.g., Flan-T5) tuned with BeInfo demonstrate strong performance on data from real `production' conversations and outperform GPT4 when tuned on a limited amount of such realistic in-domain dialogues.

Collecting diverse human data on subjective NLP topics is costly and challenging. As Large Language Models (LLMs) have developed human-like capabilities, there is a recent trend in collaborative efforts between humans and LLMs for generating diverse data, offering potential scalable and efficient solutions. However, the extent of LLMs' capability to generate diverse perspectives on subjective topics remains an unexplored question. In this study, we investigate LLMs' capacity for generating diverse perspectives and rationales on subjective topics, such as social norms and argumentative texts. We formulate this problem as diversity extraction in LLMs and propose a criteria-based prompting technique to ground diverse opinions and measure perspective diversity from the generated criteria words. Our results show that measuring semantic diversity through sentence embeddings and distance metrics is not enough to measure perspective diversity. To see how far we can extract diverse perspectives from LLMs, or called diversity coverage, we employ a step-by-step recall prompting for generating more outputs from the model in an iterative manner. As we apply our prompting method to other tasks (hate speech labeling and story continuation), indeed we find that LLMs are able to generate diverse opinions according to the degree of task subjectivity.

We introduce KnowledgeMath, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capabilities in applying financial knowledge to solve complex math word problems. Compared to prior works, this study features three core advancements. First, KnowledgeMath includes 1,259 problems with a hybrid of textual and tabular content and require college-level knowledge in the finance domain for effective resolution. Second, we provide expert-annotated, detailed solution references in Python program format, ensuring a high-quality benchmark for LLM assessment. Finally, we evaluate a wide spectrum of 14 LLMs with different prompting strategies like Chain-of-Thoughts and Program-of-Thoughts. The current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4 with Program-of-Thoughts) achieves only 45.4% accuracy, leaving substantial room for improvement. While knowledge-augmented LLMs can improve the performance (e.g., from 23.9% to 32.0% for GPT-3.5), it is still significantly lower the estimated human expert performance of 94%. We believe that KnowledgeMath can facilitate future research on domain-specific knowledge retrieval and augmentation into the math word problem-solving process. We will release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/yale-nlp/KnowledgeMath.

Users of natural language interfaces, generally powered by Large Language Models (LLMs),often must repeat their preferences each time they make a similar request. To alleviate this, we propose including some of a user's preferences and instructions in natural language -- collectively termed standing instructions -- as additional context for such interfaces. For example, when a user states I'm hungry, their previously expressed preference for Persian food will be automatically added to the LLM prompt, so as to influence the search for relevant restaurants. We develop NLSI, a language-to-program dataset consisting of over 2.4K dialogues spanning 17 domains, where each dialogue is paired with a user profile (a set of users specific standing instructions) and corresponding structured representations (API calls). A key challenge in NLSI is to identify which subset of the standing instructions is applicable to a given dialogue. NLSI contains diverse phenomena, from simple preferences to interdependent instructions such as triggering a hotel search whenever the user is booking tickets to an event. We conduct experiments on NLSI using prompting with large language models and various retrieval approaches, achieving a maximum of 44.7% exact match on API prediction. Our results demonstrate the challenges in identifying the relevant standing instructions and their interpretation into API calls.

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named \textbf{T}estset \textbf{S}lot Guessing (\textit{TS-Guessing}), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

While most existing works on LLM prompt-engineering focus only on how to select a better set of data samples inside one single prompt input (In-Context Learning or ICL), why can't we design and leverage multiple prompt inputs together to further improve the LLM performance? In this work, we propose In-Context Sampling (ICS), a low-resource LLM prompt-engineering technique to produce the most confident prediction results by optimizing the construction of multiple ICL prompt inputs. Extensive experiments with two SOTA LLMs (FlanT5-XL and Mistral-7B) on three NLI datasets (e-SNLI, Multi-NLI, and ANLI) illustrate that ICS can consistently enhance LLM's prediction performance and confidence. An ablation study suggests that a diversity-based ICS strategy may further improve LLM's performance, which sheds light on a new yet promising future research direction.

Adapting a language model into a specific domain, a.k.a `domain adaption', is a common practice when specialized knowledge, e.g. medicine, is not encapsulated in a general language model like Llama2. The challenge lies in the heterogeneity of data across the two training stages, as it varies in languages, genres, or formats. To tackle this and simplify the learning protocol, we propose to transform heterogeneous data, from the both pre-training and supervised stages, into a unified, simple input-output pair format. We validate the new protocol in the domains where proprietary LLMs like ChatGPT perform relatively poorly, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine. The developed model, HuatuoGPT-II, has shown state-of-the-art performance in Chinese medicine domain on a number of benchmarks, e.g. medical licensing exams. It even outperforms proprietary models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 in some aspects, especially in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Expert manual evaluations further validate HuatuoGPT-II's advantages over existing LLMs. Notably, HuatuoGPT-II was benchmarked in a fresh Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination where it achieved the best performance, showcasing not only its effectiveness but also its generalization capabilities.

As the use of large language models becomes more widespread, techniques like parameter-efficient fine-tuning and other methods for controlled generation are gaining traction for customizing models and managing their outputs. However, the challenge of precisely controlling how prompts influence these models is an area ripe for further investigation. In response, we introduce ControlPE (Continuously Controllable Prompt Engineering). ControlPE enables finer adjustments to prompt effects, complementing existing prompt engineering, and effectively controls continuous targets. This approach harnesses the power of LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) to create an effect akin to prompt weighting, enabling fine-tuned adjustments to the impact of prompts. Our methodology involves generating specialized datasets for prompt distillation, incorporating these prompts into the LoRA model, and carefully adjusting LoRA merging weight to regulate the influence of prompts. This provides a dynamic and adaptable tool for prompt control. Through our experiments, we have validated the practicality and efficacy of ControlPE. It proves to be a promising solution for control a variety of prompts, ranging from generating short responses prompts, refusal prompts to chain-of-thought prompts.