Given the substantial volumes of structured data held by many companies, enabling Large Language Models (LLMs) to directly understand structured text in non-structured forms could significantly enhance their capabilities across various business scenarios. To this end, we propose evaluation data generation method for assessing LLM's ability in understanding the structure-rich text, which generates structured data of controllable complexity based on manually crafted question templates and generation rules. Building on this generation method, we introduce StrucText-Eval, a benchmark comprising 6,032 questions across 8 different structured languages and 29 specific tasks. Furthermore, considering human proficiency in rule-based tasks, we also present StrucText-Eval-Hard, which includes 3,016 questions designed to further examine the gap between LLMs and human performance. Results indicate that the best-performing LLM currently achieve an accuracy of 65.0\% on StrucText-Eval-Hard, while human accuracy reaches up to 95.7\%. Moreover, while fine-tuning using StrucText-Eval can enhance existing LLMs' understanding of all structured languages, it does not necessarily improve performance across all task types. The benchmark and generation codes are open sourced in https://github.com/MikeGu721/StrucText-Eval

Large language models (LLMs) can understand human instructions, showing their potential for pragmatic applications beyond traditional NLP tasks. However, they still struggle with complex instructions, which can be either complex task descriptions that require multiple tasks and constraints, or complex input that contains long context, noise, heterogeneous information and multi-turn format. Due to these features, LLMs often ignore semantic constraints from task descriptions, generate incorrect formats, violate length or sample count constraints, and be unfaithful to the input text. Existing benchmarks are insufficient to assess LLMs' ability to understand complex instructions, as they are close-ended and simple. To bridge this gap, we propose CELLO, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to follow complex instructions systematically. We design eight features for complex instructions and construct a comprehensive evaluation dataset from real-world scenarios. We also establish four criteria and develop corresponding metrics, as current ones are inadequate, biased or too strict and coarse-grained. We compare the performance of representative Chinese-oriented and English-oriented models in following complex instructions through extensive experiments. Resources of CELLO are publicly available at https://github.com/Abbey4799/CELLO.

Domain knowledge refers to the in-depth understanding, expertise, and familiarity with a specific subject, industry, field, or area of special interest. The existing benchmarks are all lack of an overall design for domain knowledge evaluation. Holding the belief that the real ability of domain language understanding can only be fairly evaluated by an comprehensive and in-depth benchmark, we introduces the Domma, a Domain Mastery Benchmark. DomMa targets at testing Large Language Models (LLMs) on their domain knowledge understanding, it features extensive domain coverage, large data volume, and a continually updated data set based on Chinese 112 first-level subject classifications. DomMa consist of 100,000 questions in both Chinese and English sourced from graduate entrance examinations and undergraduate exams in Chinese college. We have also propose designs to make benchmark and evaluation process more suitable to LLMs.

Informal reasoning ability is the ability to reason based on common sense, experience, and intuition.Humans use informal reasoning every day to extract the most influential elements for their decision-making from a large amount of life-like information.With the rapid development of language models, the realization of general artificial intelligence has emerged with hope. Given the outstanding informal reasoning ability of humans, how much informal reasoning ability language models have has not been well studied by scholars.In order to explore the gap between humans and language models in informal reasoning ability, this paper constructs a Detective Reasoning Benchmark, which is an assembly of 1,200 questions gathered from accessible online resources, aims at evaluating the model's informal reasoning ability in real-life context.Considering the improvement of the model's informal reasoning ability restricted by the lack of benchmark, we further propose a Self-Question Prompt Framework that mimics human thinking to enhance the model's informal reasoning ability.The goals of self-question are to find key elements, deeply investigate the connections between these elements, encourage the relationship between each element and the problem, and finally, require the model to reasonably answer the problem.The experimental results show that human performance greatly outperforms the SoTA Language Models in Detective Reasoning Benchmark.Besides, Self-Question is proven to be the most effective prompt engineering in improving GPT-4's informal reasoning ability, but it still does not even surpass the lowest score made by human participants.Upon acceptance of the paper, the source code for the benchmark will be made publicly accessible.

New Natural Langauge Process (NLP) benchmarks are urgently needed to align with the rapid development of large language models (LLMs). We present Xiezhi, the most comprehensive evaluation suite designed to assess holistic domain knowledge. Xiezhi comprises multiple-choice questions across 516 diverse disciplines ranging from 13 different subjects with 249,587 questions and accompanied by Xiezhi-Specialty and Xiezhi-Interdiscipline, both with 15k questions. We conduct evaluation of the 47 cutting-edge LLMs on Xiezhi. Results indicate that LLMs exceed average performance of humans in science, engineering, agronomy, medicine, and art, but fall short in economics, jurisprudence, pedagogy, literature, history, and management.