We introduce Browsing Lost Unformed Recollections, a tip-of-the-tongue known-item search and reasoning benchmark for general AI assistants. BLUR introduces a set of 573 real-world validated questions that demand searching and reasoning across multi-modal and multilingual inputs, as well as proficient tool use, in order to excel on. Humans easily ace these questions (scoring on average 98%), while the best-performing system scores around 56%. To facilitate progress toward addressing this challenging and aspirational use case for general AI assistants, we release 350 questions through a public leaderboard, retain the answers to 250 of them, and have the rest as a private test set.

The LLM-as-judge paradigm is increasingly being adopted for automated evaluation of model outputs. While LLM judges have shown promise on constrained evaluation tasks, closed source LLMs display critical shortcomings when deployed in real world applications due to challenges of fine grained metrics and explainability, while task specific evaluation models lack cross-domain generalization. We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria. GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models, achieving comparable performance to LLMs 17x its size. GLIDER supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria. Extensive qualitative analysis shows that GLIDER scores are highly correlated with human judgments, with 91.3% human agreement. We have open-sourced GLIDER to facilitate future research.

Language Models have previously shown strong negotiation capabilities in closed domains where the negotiation strategy prediction scope is constrained to a specific setup. In this paper, we first show that these models are not generalizable beyond their original training domain despite their wide-scale pretraining. Following this, we propose an automated framework called GNOME, which processes existing human-annotated, closed-domain datasets using Large Language Models and produces synthetic open-domain dialogues for negotiation. GNOME improves the generalizability of negotiation systems while reducing the expensive and subjective task of manual data curation. Through our experimental setup, we create a benchmark comparing encoder and decoder models trained on existing datasets against datasets created through GNOME. Our results show that models trained on our dataset not only perform better than previous state of the art models on domain specific strategy prediction, but also generalize better to previously unseen domains.

Downstream applications often require text classification models to be accurate, robust, and interpretable. While the accuracy of the stateof-the-art language models approximates human performance, they are not designed to be interpretable and often exhibit a drop in performance on noisy data. The family of PrototypeBased Networks (PBNs) that classify examples based on their similarity to prototypical examples of a class (prototypes) is natively interpretable and shown to be robust to noise, which enabled its wide usage for computer vision tasks. In this paper, we study whether the robustness properties of PBNs transfer to text classification tasks. We design a modular and comprehensive framework for studying PBNs, which includes different backbone architectures, backbone sizes, and objective functions. Our evaluation protocol assesses the robustness of models against character-, word-, and sentence-level perturbations. Our experiments on three benchmarks show that the robustness of PBNs transfers to NLP classification tasks facing realistic perturbations. Moreover, the robustness of PBNs is supported mostly by the objective function that keeps prototypes interpretable, while the robustness superiority of PBNs over vanilla models becomes more salient as datasets get more complex.

Automatic assessment of the quality of arguments has been recognized as a challenging task with significant implications for misinformation and targeted speech. While real-world arguments are tightly anchored in context, existing computational methods analyze their quality in isolation, which affects their accuracy and generalizability. We propose SPARK: a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument. SPARK uses a dual-encoder Transformer architecture to enable the original argument and its augmentation to be considered jointly. Our experiments in both in-domain and zero-shot setups show that SPARK consistently outperforms existing techniques across multiple metrics.

The spread of misinformation, propaganda, and flawed argumentation has been amplified in the Internet era. Given the volume of data and the subtlety of identifying violations of argumentation norms, supporting information analytics tasks, like content moderation, with trustworthy methods that can identify logical fallacies is essential. In this paper, we formalize prior theoretical work on logical fallacies into a comprehensive three-stage evaluation framework of detection, coarse-grained, and fine-grained classification. We adapt existing evaluation datasets for each stage of the evaluation. We employ three families of robust and explainable methods based on prototype reasoning, instance-based reasoning, and knowledge injection. The methods combine language models with background knowledge and explainable mechanisms. Moreover, we address data sparsity with strategies for data augmentation and curriculum learning. Our three-stage framework natively consolidates prior datasets and methods from existing tasks, like propaganda detection, serving as an overarching evaluation testbed. We extensively evaluate these methods on our datasets, focusing on their robustness and explainability. Our results provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the methods on different components and fallacy classes, indicating that fallacy identification is a challenging task that may require specialized forms of reasoning to capture various classes. We share our open-source code and data on GitHub to support further work on logical fallacy identification.