Wenpeng Yin’s research while affiliated with William Penn University and other places

Numerous studies have assessed the proficiency of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), in facilitating everyday tasks such as email writing, question answering, and creative content generation. However, researchers face unique challenges and opportunities in leveraging LLMs for their own work, such as brainstorming research ideas, designing experiments, and writing or reviewing papers. In this study, we introduce AAAR-1.0, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate LLM performance in three fundamental, expertise-intensive research tasks: (i) EquationInference, assessing the correctness of equations based on the contextual information in paper submissions; (ii) ExperimentDesign, designing experiments to validate research ideas and solutions; (iii) PaperWeakness, identifying weaknesses in paper submissions; and (iv) REVIEWCRITIQUE, identifying each segment in human reviews is deficient or not. AAAR-1.0 differs from prior benchmarks in two key ways: first, it is explicitly research-oriented, with tasks requiring deep domain expertise; second, it is researcher-oriented, mirroring the primary activities that researchers engage in on a daily basis. An evaluation of both open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals their potential as well as limitations in conducting sophisticated research tasks. We will keep iterating AAAR-1.0 to new versions.

Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.

The mathematical capabilities of AI systems are complex and multifaceted. Most existing research has predominantly focused on the correctness of AI-generated solutions to mathematical problems. In this work, we argue that beyond producing correct answers, AI systems should also be capable of, or assist humans in, developing novel solutions to mathematical challenges. This study explores the creative potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning, an aspect that has received limited attention in prior research. We introduce a novel framework and benchmark, CreativeMath, which encompasses problems ranging from middle school curricula to Olympic-level competitions, designed to assess LLMs' ability to propose innovative solutions after some known solutions have been provided. Our experiments demonstrate that, while LLMs perform well on standard mathematical tasks, their capacity for creative problem-solving varies considerably. Notably, the Gemini-1.5-Pro model outperformed other LLMs in generating novel solutions. This research opens a new frontier in evaluating AI creativity, shedding light on both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in fostering mathematical innovation, and setting the stage for future developments in AI-assisted mathematical discovery.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable proficiency in generating text, benefiting from extensive training on vast textual corpora. However, LLMs may also acquire unwanted behaviors from the diverse and sensitive nature of their training data, which can include copyrighted and private content. Machine unlearning has been introduced as a viable solution to remove the influence of such problematic content without the need for costly and time-consuming retraining. This process aims to erase specific knowledge from LLMs while preserving as much model utility as possible. Despite the effectiveness of current unlearning methods, little attention has been given to whether existing unlearning methods for LLMs truly achieve forgetting or merely hide the knowledge, which current unlearning benchmarks fail to detect. This paper reveals that applying quantization to models that have undergone unlearning can restore the "forgotten" information. To thoroughly evaluate this phenomenon, we conduct comprehensive experiments using various quantization techniques across multiple precision levels. We find that for unlearning methods with utility constraints, the unlearned model retains an average of 21\% of the intended forgotten knowledge in full precision, which significantly increases to 83\% after 4-bit quantization. Based on our empirical findings, we provide a theoretical explanation for the observed phenomenon and propose a quantization-robust unlearning strategy to mitigate this intricate issue...

In this paper, we investigate Extractive Question Answering (EQA) with Large Language Models (LLMs) under domain drift, i.e., can LLMs generalize well to closed-domains that require specific knowledge such as medicine and law in a zero-shot fashion without additional in-domain training? To this end, we devise a series of experiments to empirically explain the performance gap. Our findings suggest that: a) LLMs struggle with dataset demands of closed-domains such as retrieving long answer-spans; b) Certain LLMs, despite showing strong overall performance, display weaknesses in meeting basic requirements as discriminating between domain-specific senses of words which we link to pre-processing decisions; c) Scaling model parameters is not always effective for cross-domain generalization; and d) Closed-domain datasets are quantitatively much different than open-domain EQA datasets and current LLMs struggle to deal with them. Our findings point out important directions for improving existing LLMs.

Mainstream LLM research has primarily focused on enhancing their generative capabilities. However, even the most advanced LLMs experience uncertainty in their outputs, often producing varied results on different runs or when faced with minor changes in input, despite no substantial change in content. Given multiple responses from the same LLM to the same input, we advocate leveraging the LLMs' discriminative capability to reduce this generative uncertainty, aiding in identifying the correct answers. Specifically, we propose and analyze three discriminative prompts: direct, inverse, and hybrid, to explore the potential of both closed-source and open-source LLMs in self-improving their generative performance on two benchmark datasets. Our insights reveal which discriminative prompt is most promising and when to use it. To our knowledge, this is the first work to systematically analyze LLMs' discriminative capacity to address generative uncertainty.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

In many classification tasks designed for AI or human to solve, gold labels are typically included within the label space by default, often posed as "which of the following is correct?" This standard setup has traditionally highlighted the strong performance of advanced AI, particularly top-performing Large Language Models (LLMs), in routine classification tasks. However, when the gold label is intentionally excluded from the label space, it becomes evident that LLMs still attempt to select from the available label candidates, even when none are correct. This raises a pivotal question: Do LLMs truly demonstrate their intelligence in understanding the essence of classification tasks? In this study, we evaluate both closed-source and open-source LLMs across representative classification tasks, arguing that the perceived performance of LLMs is overstated due to their inability to exhibit the expected comprehension of the task. This paper makes a threefold contribution: i) To our knowledge, this is the first work to identify the limitations of LLMs in classification tasks when gold labels are absent. We define this task as Classify-w/o-Gold and propose it as a new testbed for LLMs. ii) We introduce a benchmark, Know-No, comprising two existing classification tasks and one new task, to evaluate Classify-w/o-Gold. iii) This work defines and advocates for a new evaluation metric, OmniAccuracy, which assesses LLMs' performance in classification tasks both when gold labels are present and absent.

Task semantics can be expressed by a set of input-output examples or a piece of textual instruction. Conventional machine learning approaches for natural language processing (NLP) mainly rely on the availability of large-scale sets of task-specific examples. Two issues arise: first, collecting task-specific labeled examples does not apply to scenarios where tasks may be too complicated or costly to annotate, or the system is required to handle a new task immediately; second, this is not user-friendly since end-users are probably more willing to provide task description rather than a set of examples before using the system. Therefore, the community is paying increasing interest in a new supervision-seeking paradigm for NLP: learning to follow task instructions, i.e., instruction following. Despite its impressive progress, there are some unsolved research equations that the community struggles with. This survey paper tries to summarize and provide insights to the current research on instruction following, particularly, by answering the following questions: (i) What is task instruction, and what instruction types exist? (ii) How to model instructions? (iii) What are popular instruction following datasets and evaluation metrics? (iv) What factors influence and explain the instructions’ performance? (v) What challenges remain in instruction following? To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive survey about instruction following.