Solving financial problems demands complex reasoning, multimodal data processing, and a broad technical understanding, presenting unique challenges for current large language models (LLMs). We introduce XFinBench, a novel benchmark with 4,235 examples designed to evaluate LLM's ability in solving complex, knowledge-intensive financial problems across diverse graduate-level finance topics with multi-modal context. We identify five core capabilities of LLMs using XFinBench, i.e, terminology understanding, temporal reasoning, future forecasting, scenario planning, and numerical modelling. Upon XFinBench, we conduct extensive experiments on 18 leading models. The result shows that o1 is the best-performing text-only model with an overall accuracy of 67.3%, but still lags significantly behind human experts with 12.5%, especially in temporal reasoning and scenario planning capabilities. We further construct a knowledge bank with 3,032 finance terms for knowledge augmentation analysis, and find that relevant knowledge to the question only brings consistent accuracy improvements to small open-source model. Additionally, our error analysis reveals that rounding errors during calculation and blindness to position and intersection of curves in the image are two primary issues leading to model's poor performance in calculating and visual-context questions, respectively. Code and dataset are accessible via GitHub: https://github.com/Zhihan72/XFinBench.

With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.

There is an increasing body of work using Large Language Models (LLMs) as agents for orchestrating workflows and making decisions in domains that require planning and multi-step reasoning. As a result, it is imperative to evaluate LLMs on core skills required for planning. In this work, we present ACPBench, a benchmark for evaluating the reasoning tasks in the field of planning. The benchmark consists of 7 reasoning tasks over 13 planning domains. The collection is constructed from planning domains described in a formal language. This allows us to synthesize problems with provably correct solutions across many tasks and domains. Further, it allows us the luxury of scale without additional human effort, i.e., many additional problems can be created automatically. Our extensive evaluation of 22 LLMs and OpenAI o1 reasoning models highlights the significant gap in the reasoning capability of the LLMs. Our findings with OpenAI o1, a multi-turn reasoning model, reveal significant gains in performance on multiple-choice questions, yet surprisingly, no notable progress is made on boolean questions. The ACPBench collection is available at https://ibm.github.io/ACPBench.

Understanding visual semantics embedded in consecutive characters is a crucial capability for both large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal large language models (MLLMs). This type of artifact possesses the unique characteristic that identical information can be readily formulated in both texts and images, making them a significant proxy for analyzing modern LLMs' and MLLMs' capabilities in modality-agnostic vision understanding. In this work, we select ASCII art as a representative artifact, where the lines and brightness used to depict each concept are rendered by characters, and we frame the problem as an ASCII art recognition task. We benchmark model performance on this task by constructing an evaluation dataset with an elaborate categorization tree and also collect a training set to elicit the models' visual perception ability. Through a comprehensive analysis of dozens of models, results reveal that although humans can achieve nearly 100% accuracy, the state-of-the-art LLMs and MLLMs lag far behind. Models are capable of recognizing concepts depicted in the ASCII arts given only text inputs indicated by over 60% accuracy for some concepts, but most of them achieves merely around 30% accuracy when averaged across all categories. When provided with images as inputs, GPT-4o gets 82.68%, outperforming the strongest open-source MLLM by 21.95%. Although models favor different kinds of ASCII art depending on the modality provided, none of the MLLMs successfully benefit when both modalities are supplied simultaneously. Moreover, supervised fine-tuning helps improve models' accuracy especially when provided with the image modality, but also highlights the need for better training techniques to enhance the information fusion among modalities. While conventional wisdom suggests that texts primarily function as carriers of linguistic information and images as conveyors of visual information, real-world scenarios often involve the integration of multiple information formats.

We present TMMLU+, a new benchmark designed for Traditional Chinese language understanding. TMMLU+ is a multi-choice question-answering dataset with 66 subjects from elementary to professional level. It is six times larger and boasts a more balanced subject distribution than its predecessor, Taiwan Massive Multitask Language Understanding (TMMLU). We also benchmark closed-source models and 26 open-weight Chinese large language models (LLMs) of parameters ranging from 1.8B to 72B on the proposed TMMLU+. Our findings reveal that (1.) Traditional Chinese models still trail behind their Simplified Chinese counterparts, highlighting a need for more focused advancements in LLMs catering to Traditional Chinese. (2.) Current LLMs still fall short of human performance in average scores, indicating a potential need for future research to delve deeper into social science and humanities subjects. (3.) Among all the tokenization compression metrics examined, we identify that only the fertility score uniquely demonstrates strong correlations with our benchmark results. We foresee that TMMLU+ will pinpoint areas for future model improvement, thereby narrowing the gap between machine and human linguistic capabilities and supporting researchers in developing Traditional Chinese LLMs. Our dataset, along with the benchmark source code, is accessible at huggingface.co/datasets/ikala/tmmluplus.

Health insurance companies have a defined process called prior authorization (PA) which is a health plan cost-control process that requires doctors and other healthcare professionals to get clearance in advance from a health plan before performing a particular procedure on a patient in order to be eligible for payment coverage. For health insurance companies, approving PA requests for patients in the medical domain is a time-consuming and challenging task. One of those key challenges is validating if a request matches up to certain criteria such as age, gender, etc. In this work, we evaluate whether GPT can validate numerous key factors, in turn helping health plans reach a decision drastically faster. We frame it as a question answering task, prompting GPT to answer a question from patient electronic health record. We experiment with different conventional prompting techniques as well as introduce our own novel prompting technique. Moreover, we report qualitative assessment by humans on the natural language generation outputs from our approach. Results show that our method achieves superior performance with the mean weighted F1 score of 0.61 as compared to its standard counterparts.

Recently, large language model (LLM) based artificial intelligence (AI) systems have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. However, these models face a significant challenge when it comes to sensitive applications, such as reasoning over medical knowledge and answering medical questions in a physician-like manner. Prior studies attempted to overcome this challenge by increasing the model size (>100B) to learn more general medical knowledge, while there is still room for improvement in LLMs with smaller-scale model sizes (<100B). In this work, we start from a pre-trained general LLM model (AntGLM-10B) and fine-tune it from a medical beginner towards a medical expert (called AntGLM-Med-10B), which leverages a 3-stage optimization procedure, i.e., general medical knowledge injection, medical domain instruction tuning, and specific medical task adaptation. Our contributions are threefold: (1) We specifically investigate how to adapt a pre-trained general LLM in medical domain, especially for a specific medical task. (2) We collect and construct large-scale medical datasets for each stage of the optimization process. These datasets encompass various data types and tasks, such as question-answering, medical reasoning, multi-choice questions, and medical conversations. (3) Specifically for multi-choice questions in the medical domain, we propose a novel Verification-of-Choice approach for prompting engineering, which significantly enhances the reasoning ability of LLMs. Remarkably, by combining the above approaches, our AntGLM-Med-10B model can outperform the most of LLMs on PubMedQA, including both general and medical LLMs, even when these LLMs have larger model size.

With the proliferation of dialogic data across the Internet, the Dialogue Commonsense Multi-choice Question Answering (DC-MCQ) task has emerged as a response to the challenge of comprehending user queries and intentions. Although prevailing methodologies exhibit effectiveness in addressing single-choice questions, they encounter difficulties in handling multi-choice queries due to the heightened intricacy and informational density. In this paper, inspired by the human cognitive process of progressively excluding options, we propose a three-step Reverse Exclusion Graph-of-Thought (ReX-GoT) framework, including Option Exclusion, Error Analysis, and Combine Information. Specifically, our ReX-GoT mimics human reasoning by gradually excluding irrelevant options and learning the reasons for option errors to choose the optimal path of the GoT and ultimately infer the correct answer. By progressively integrating intricate clues, our method effectively reduces the difficulty of multi-choice reasoning and provides a novel solution for DC-MCQ. Extensive experiments on the CICERO and CICERO$_{v2}$ datasets validate the significant improvement of our approach on DC-MCQ task. On zero-shot setting, our model outperform the best baseline by 17.67% in terms of F1 score for the multi-choice task. Most strikingly, our GPT3.5-based ReX-GoT framework achieves a remarkable 39.44% increase in F1 score.

Nowadays, the versatile capabilities of Pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) have attracted much attention from the industry. However, some vertical domains are more interested in the in-domain capabilities of LLMs. For the Networks domain, we present NetEval, an evaluation set for measuring the comprehensive capabilities of LLMs in Network Operations (NetOps). NetEval is designed for evaluating the commonsense knowledge and inference ability in NetOps in a multi-lingual context. NetEval consists of 5,732 questions about NetOps, covering five different sub-domains of NetOps. With NetEval, we systematically evaluate the NetOps capability of 26 publicly available LLMs. The results show that only GPT-4 can achieve a performance competitive to humans. However, some open models like LLaMA 2 demonstrate significant potential.

Various human activities can be abstracted into a sequence of actions in natural text, i.e. cooking, repairing, manufacturing, etc. Such action sequences heavily depend on the executing order, while disorder in action sequences leads to failure of further task execution by robots or AI agents. Therefore, to verify the order reasoning capability of current neural models in sequential tasks, we propose a challenging benchmark , named STEPS. STEPS involves two subtask settings, focusing on determining the rationality of given next step in recipes and selecting the reasonable step from the multi-choice question, respectively. We describe the data construction and task formulations, and benchmark most of significant Large Language Models (LLMs). The experimental results demonstrate 1) The commonsense reasoning of action orders in sequential tasks are challenging to resolve via zero-shot prompting or few-shot in-context learning for LLMs; 2) Prompting method still significantly lags behind tuning-based method on STEPS.