Concept-based explanations work by mapping complex model computations to human-understandable concepts. Evaluating such explanations is very difficult, as it includes not only the quality of the induced space of possible concepts but also how effectively the chosen concepts are communicated to users. Existing evaluation metrics often focus solely on the former, neglecting the latter. We introduce an evaluation framework for measuring concept explanations via automated simulatability: a simulator's ability to predict the explained model's outputs based on the provided explanations. This approach accounts for both the concept space and its interpretation in an end-to-end evaluation. Human studies for simulatability are notoriously difficult to enact, particularly at the scale of a wide, comprehensive empirical evaluation (which is the subject of this work). We propose using large language models (LLMs) as simulators to approximate the evaluation and report various analyses to make such approximations reliable. Our method allows for scalable and consistent evaluation across various models and datasets. We report a comprehensive empirical evaluation using this framework and show that LLMs provide consistent rankings of explanation methods. Code available at https://github.com/AnonymousConSim/ConSim.

We introduce FACTS Grounding, an online leaderboard and associated benchmark that evaluates language models' ability to generate text that is factually accurate with respect to given context in the user prompt. In our benchmark, each prompt includes a user request and a full document, with a maximum length of 32k tokens, requiring long-form responses. The long-form responses are required to be fully grounded in the provided context document while fulfilling the user request. Models are evaluated using automated judge models in two phases: (1) responses are disqualified if they do not fulfill the user request; (2) they are judged as accurate if the response is fully grounded in the provided document. The automated judge models were comprehensively evaluated against a held-out test-set to pick the best prompt template, and the final factuality score is an aggregate of multiple judge models to mitigate evaluation bias. The FACTS Grounding leaderboard will be actively maintained over time, and contains both public and private splits to allow for external participation while guarding the integrity of the leaderboard. It can be found at https://www.kaggle.com/facts-leaderboard.

Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance on tasks involving long contexts remains sub-optimal. In-Context Learning (ICL) with few-shot examples may be an appealing solution to enhance LLM performance in this scenario; However, naively adding ICL examples with long context introduces challenges, including substantial token overhead added for each few-shot example and context mismatch between the demonstrations and the target query. In this work, we propose to automatically generate few-shot examples for long context QA tasks by recycling contexts. Specifically, given a long input context (1-3k tokens) and a query, we generate additional query-output pairs from the given context as few-shot examples, while introducing the context only once. This ensures that the demonstrations are leveraging the same context as the target query while only adding a small number of tokens to the prompt. We further enhance each demonstration by instructing the model to explicitly identify the relevant paragraphs before the answer, which improves performance while providing fine-grained attribution to the answer source. We apply our method on multiple LLMs and obtain substantial improvements (+23\% on average across models) on various QA datasets with long context, especially when the answer lies within the middle of the context. Surprisingly, despite introducing only single-hop ICL examples, LLMs also successfully generalize to multi-hop long-context QA using our approach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not perform well on queries that require the aggregation of information across texts. To better evaluate this setting and facilitate modeling efforts, we introduce TACT - Text And Calculations through Tables, a dataset crafted to evaluate LLMs' reasoning and computational abilities using complex instructions. TACT contains challenging instructions that demand stitching information scattered across one or more texts, and performing complex integration on this information to generate the answer. We construct this dataset by leveraging an existing dataset of texts and their associated tables. For each such tables, we formulate new queries, and gather their respective answers. We demonstrate that all contemporary LLMs perform poorly on this dataset, achieving an accuracy below 38\%. To pinpoint the difficulties and thoroughly dissect the problem, we analyze model performance across three components: table-generation, Pandas command-generation, and execution. Unexpectedly, we discover that each component presents substantial challenges for current LLMs. These insights lead us to propose a focused modeling framework, which we refer to as IE as a tool. Specifically, we propose to add "tools" for each of the above steps, and implement each such tool with few-shot prompting. This approach shows an improvement over existing prompting techniques, offering a promising direction for enhancing model capabilities in these tasks.

Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., "Chain-of-Thought") is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning steps to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce Reveal: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a new dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question answering settings. Reveal includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a wide variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models.

A growing area of research investigates augmenting language models with tools (e.g., search engines, calculators) to overcome their shortcomings (e.g., missing or incorrect knowledge, incorrect logical inferences). Various few-shot tool-usage strategies have been proposed. However, there is no systematic and fair comparison across different strategies, or between these strategies and strong baselines that do not leverage tools. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis, finding that (1) across various datasets, example difficulty levels, and models, strong no-tool baselines are competitive to tool-assisted strategies, implying that effectively using tools with in-context demonstrations is a difficult unsolved problem; (2) for knowledge-retrieval tasks, strategies that *refine* incorrect outputs with tools outperform strategies that retrieve relevant information *ahead of* or *during generation*; (3) tool-assisted strategies are expensive in the number of tokens they require to work -- incurring additional costs by orders of magnitude -- which does not translate into significant improvement in performance. Overall, our findings suggest that few-shot tool integration is still an open challenge, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of future strategies to accurately assess their *benefits* and *costs*.

We investigate a formalism for the conditions of a successful explanation of AI. We consider "success" to depend not only on what information the explanation contains, but also on what information the human explainee understands from it. Theory of mind literature discusses the folk concepts that humans use to understand and generalize behavior. We posit that folk concepts of behavior provide us with a "language" that humans understand behavior with. We use these folk concepts as a framework of social attribution by the human explainee--the information constructs that humans are likely to comprehend from explanations--by introducing a blueprint for an explanatory narrative (Figure 1) that explains AI behavior with these constructs. We then demonstrate that many XAI methods today can be mapped to folk concepts of behavior in a qualitative evaluation. This allows us to uncover their failure modes that prevent current methods from explaining successfully--i.e., the information constructs that are missing for any given XAI method, and whose inclusion can decrease the likelihood of misunderstanding AI behavior.

Data contamination has become prevalent and challenging with the rise of models pretrained on large automatically-crawled corpora. For closed models, the training data becomes a trade secret, and even for open models, it is not trivial to detect contamination. Strategies such as leaderboards with hidden answers, or using test data which is guaranteed to be unseen, are expensive and become fragile with time. Assuming that all relevant actors value clean test data and will cooperate to mitigate data contamination, what can be done? We propose three strategies that can make a difference: (1) Test data made public should be encrypted with a public key and licensed to disallow derivative distribution; (2) demand training exclusion controls from closed API holders, and protect your test data by refusing to evaluate without them; (3) avoid data which appears with its solution on the internet, and release the web-page context of internet-derived data along with the data. These strategies are practical and can be effective in preventing data contamination.

Ensuring quality human-AI interaction (HAII) in safety-critical industries is essential. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic and deadly consequences. Despite this urgency, what little research there is on HAII is fragmented and inconsistent. We present here a survey of that literature and recommendations for research best practices that will improve the field. We divided our investigation into the following research areas: (1) terms used to describe HAII, (2) primary roles of AI-enabled systems, (3) factors that influence HAII, and (4) how HAII is measured. Additionally, we described the capabilities and maturity of the AI-enabled systems used in safety-critical industries discussed in these articles. We found that no single term is used across the literature to describe HAII and some terms have multiple meanings. According to our literature, five factors influence HAII: user characteristics and background (e.g., user personality, perceptions), AI interface and features (e.g., interactive UI design), AI output (e.g., accuracy, actionable recommendations), explainability and interpretability (e.g., level of detail, user understanding), and usage of AI (e.g., heterogeneity of environments and user needs). HAII is most commonly measured with user-related subjective metrics (e.g., user perception, trust, and attitudes), and AI-assisted decision-making is the most common primary role of AI-enabled systems. Based on this review, we conclude that there are substantial research gaps in HAII. Researchers and developers need to codify HAII terminology, involve users throughout the AI lifecycle (especially during development), and tailor HAII in safety-critical industries to the users and environments.

Word-level saliency explanations ("heat maps over words") are often used to communicate feature-attribution in text-based models. Recent studies found that superficial factors such as word length can distort human interpretation of the communicated saliency scores. We conduct a user study to investigate how the marking of a word's neighboring words affect the explainee's perception of the word's importance in the context of a saliency explanation. We find that neighboring words have significant effects on the word's importance rating. Concretely, we identify that the influence changes based on neighboring direction (left vs. right) and a-priori linguistic and computational measures of phrases and collocations (vs. unrelated neighboring words). Our results question whether text-based saliency explanations should be continued to be communicated at word level, and inform future research on alternative saliency explanation methods.