We introduce self-invoking code generation, a new task designed to evaluate the progressive reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. In this task, models are presented with a base problem and a related, more complex problem. They must solve the base problem and then utilize its solution to address the more complex one. This work features three key contributions. First, we propose a general recipe for generating more challenging versions of existing benchmarks, resulting in three new benchmarks: HumanEval Pro, MBPP Pro, and BigCodeBench-Lite Pro, specifically designed to assess LLMs on self-invoking code generation. Second, from the analysis of experimental results over twenty LLMs on our benchmarks, we have two important observations: (i) Most LLMs excel in traditional code generation benchmarks like HumanEval and MBPP, but their performance declines on self-invoking tasks. For example, o1-mini achieves 96.2% pass@1 on HumanEval but only 76.2% on HumanEval Pro. (ii) On self-invoking code generation task, the instruction-tuned models demonstrate only marginal improvements compared to the base models. Third, we disclose the types of failure modes that exist in our evaluation results. All these results underscore the need for further advancements in self-invoking code generation tasks and provide a new direction for future research on enhancing LLMs' code reasoning capabilities.

The advancement and extensive application of large language models (LLMs) have been remarkable, including their use in scientific research assistance. However, these models often generate scientifically incorrect or unsafe responses, and in some cases, they may encourage users to engage in dangerous behavior. To address this issue in the field of chemistry, we introduce ChemSafetyBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of LLM responses. ChemSafetyBench encompasses three key tasks: querying chemical properties, assessing the legality of chemical uses, and describing synthesis methods, each requiring increasingly deeper chemical knowledge. Our dataset has more than 30K samples across various chemical materials. We incorporate handcrafted templates and advanced jailbreaking scenarios to enhance task diversity. Our automated evaluation framework thoroughly assesses the safety, accuracy, and appropriateness of LLM responses. Extensive experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal notable strengths and critical vulnerabilities, underscoring the need for robust safety measures. ChemSafetyBench aims to be a pivotal tool in developing safer AI technologies in chemistry. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HaochenZhao/SafeAgent4Chem. Warning: this paper contains discussions on the synthesis of controlled chemicals using AI models.

Multi-document (MD) processing is crucial for LLMs to handle real-world tasks such as summarization and question-answering across large sets of documents. While LLMs have improved at processing long inputs, MD contexts still present challenges, such as managing inter-document dependencies, redundancy, and incoherent structures. We introduce MDCure, a scalable and effective fine-tuning pipeline to enhance the MD capabilities of LLMs without the computational cost of pre-training or reliance on human annotated data. MDCure is based on generation of high-quality synthetic MD instruction data from sets of related articles via targeted prompts. We further introduce MDCureRM, a multi-objective reward model which filters generated data based on their training utility for MD settings. With MDCure, we fine-tune a variety of LLMs, from the FlanT5, Qwen2, and LLAMA3.1 model families, up to 70B parameters in size. Extensive evaluations on a wide range of MD and long-context benchmarks spanning various tasks show MDCure consistently improves performance over pre-trained baselines and over corresponding base models by up to 75.5%. Our code, datasets, and models are available at https://github.com/yale-nlp/MDCure.

Scientific literature is typically dense, requiring significant background knowledge and deep comprehension for effective engagement. We introduce SciDQA, a new dataset for reading comprehension that challenges LLMs for a deep understanding of scientific articles, consisting of 2,937 QA pairs. Unlike other scientific QA datasets, SciDQA sources questions from peer reviews by domain experts and answers by paper authors, ensuring a thorough examination of the literature. We enhance the dataset's quality through a process that carefully filters out lower quality questions, decontextualizes the content, tracks the source document across different versions, and incorporates a bibliography for multi-document question-answering. Questions in SciDQA necessitate reasoning across figures, tables, equations, appendices, and supplementary materials, and require multi-document reasoning. We evaluate several open-source and proprietary LLMs across various configurations to explore their capabilities in generating relevant and factual responses. Our comprehensive evaluation, based on metrics for surface-level similarity and LLM judgements, highlights notable performance discrepancies. SciDQA represents a rigorously curated, naturally derived scientific QA dataset, designed to facilitate research on complex scientific text understanding.

We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 2,400 expert-annotated examples, divided into three subsets: information extraction, numerical reasoning, and knowledge-intensive reasoning, each addressing common scenarios encountered in real-world financial contexts. We assess a broad spectrum of LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system, GPT-4o, still lags behind human experts. We further provide in-depth analysis on long-context and RAG setting, Chain-of-Thought reasoning, and model reasoning errors, offering insights to drive future advancements. We believe that FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.

Existing benchmarks for evaluating foundation models mainly focus on single-document, text-only tasks. However, they often fail to fully capture the complexity of research workflows, which typically involve interpreting non-textual data and gathering information across multiple documents. To address this gap, we introduce M3SciQA, a multi-modal, multi-document scientific question answering benchmark designed for a more comprehensive evaluation of foundation models. M3SciQA consists of 1,452 expert-annotated questions spanning 70 natural language processing paper clusters, where each cluster represents a primary paper along with all its cited documents, mirroring the workflow of comprehending a single paper by requiring multi-modal and multi-document data. With M3SciQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 18 foundation models. Our results indicate that current foundation models still significantly underperform compared to human experts in multi-modal information retrieval and in reasoning across multiple scientific documents. Additionally, we explore the implications of these findings for the future advancement of applying foundation models in multi-modal scientific literature analysis.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show the potential of using LLMs as evaluators for assessing the quality of text generations from LLMs. However, applying LLM evaluators naively to compare or judge between different systems can lead to unreliable results due to the intrinsic win rate estimation bias of LLM evaluators. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose two calibration methods, Bayesian Win Rate Sampling (BWRS) and Bayesian Dawid-Skene, both of which leverage Bayesian inference to more accurately infer the true win rate of generative language models. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks. We show that both our methods are effective in improving the accuracy of win rate estimation using LLMs as evaluators, offering a promising direction for reliable automatic text quality evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used to generate solutions for mathematical reasoning problems in the following formats: natural language, code, or a combination of both. In this paper, we explore fundamental questions related to solving mathematical reasoning problems using natural language and code with state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o-mini and LLama-3.1-8b-Turbo. Our findings show that LLMs are better at reasoning in natural language compared to code. Additionally, although natural language and code serve as complementary forms of reasoning, they can affect each other in a negative way in certain scenarios. These insights motivate our development of a new prompting method, INC-Math, which leverages an LLM to dynamically select the most appropriate reasoning form, resulting in improved performance over comparable baselines with GPT-4o-mini.

Many alignment methods, including reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), rely on the Bradley-Terry reward assumption, which is insufficient to capture the full range of general human preferences. To achieve robust alignment with general preferences, we model the alignment problem as a two-player zero-sum game, where the Nash equilibrium policy guarantees a 50% win rate against any competing policy. However, previous algorithms for finding the Nash policy either diverge or converge to a Nash policy in a modified game, even in a simple synthetic setting, thereby failing to maintain the 50% win rate guarantee against all other policies. We propose a meta-algorithm, Convergent Meta Alignment Algorithm (COMAL), for language model alignment with general preferences, inspired by convergent algorithms in game theory. Theoretically, we prove that our meta-algorithm converges to an exact Nash policy in the last iterate. Additionally, our meta-algorithm is simple and can be integrated with many existing methods designed for RLHF and preference optimization with minimal changes. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework when combined with existing preference policy optimization methods.

Existing benchmarks often highlight the remarkable performance achieved by state-of-the-art Multimodal Foundation Models (MFMs) in leveraging temporal context for video understanding. However, how well do the models truly perform visual temporal reasoning? Our study of existing benchmarks shows that this capability of MFMs is likely overestimated as many questions can be solved by using a single, few, or out-of-order frames. To systematically examine current visual temporal reasoning tasks, we propose three principles with corresponding metrics: (1) Multi-Frame Gain, (2) Frame Order Sensitivity, and (3) Frame Information Disparity. Following these principles, we introduce TOMATO, Temporal Reasoning Multimodal Evaluation, a novel benchmark crafted to rigorously assess MFMs' temporal reasoning capabilities in video understanding. TOMATO comprises 1,484 carefully curated, human-annotated questions spanning six tasks (i.e., action count, direction, rotation, shape & trend, velocity & frequency, and visual cues), applied to 1,417 videos, including 805 self-recorded and -generated videos, that encompass human-centric, real-world, and simulated scenarios. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a human-model performance gap of 57.3% with the best-performing model. Moreover, our in-depth analysis uncovers more fundamental limitations beyond this gap in current MFMs. While they can accurately recognize events in isolated frames, they fail to interpret these frames as a continuous sequence. We believe TOMATO will serve as a crucial testbed for evaluating the next-generation MFMs and as a call to the community to develop AI systems capable of comprehending human world dynamics through the video modality.