We introduce AbGen, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research. AbGen consists of 2,000 expert-annotated examples derived from 677 NLP papers. In this benchmark, LLMs are tasked with generating detailed ablation study designs for a specified module or process based on the given research context. Our evaluation of leading LLMs, such as GPT-4o and Llama-3.1, highlights a significant performance gap between these models and human experts in terms of the importance, faithfulness, and soundness of the ablation study designs. Moreover, we demonstrate that current automated evaluation methods are not reliable for our task, as they show a significant discrepancy when compared to human assessment. To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems in measuring LLM performance on our task. We investigate various LLM-based evaluation methods on AbGen-Eval, providing insights for future research on developing more effective and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for complex scientific tasks.

Peer review is fundamental to scientific research, but the growing volume of publications has intensified the challenges of this expertise-intensive process. While LLMs show promise in various scientific tasks, their potential to assist with peer review, particularly in identifying paper limitations, remains understudied. We first present a comprehensive taxonomy of limitation types in scientific research, with a focus on AI. Guided by this taxonomy, for studying limitations, we present LimitGen, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capability to support early-stage feedback and complement human peer review. Our benchmark consists of two subsets: LimitGen-Syn, a synthetic dataset carefully created through controlled perturbations of high-quality papers, and LimitGen-Human, a collection of real human-written limitations. To improve the ability of LLM systems to identify limitations, we augment them with literature retrieval, which is essential for grounding identifying limitations in prior scientific findings. Our approach enhances the capabilities of LLM systems to generate limitations in research papers, enabling them to provide more concrete and constructive feedback.

Task-oriented dialogue (TOD) systems are widely used across various domains, including customer service, appointment scheduling, and technical support. In real-world scenarios, such systems must adhere to given operational guidelines. However, existing solutions based on large language models often cannot achieve strict guideline compliance, even when fine-tuned with domain knowledge. To address this issue, we introduce a novel TOD system named GuidedTOD, which explicitly considers domain-specific guidelines by integrating a policy module. This module employs a Markov Chain, termed Chained Prior, to efficiently encode and dynamically update guideline knowledge. During inference, the Chained Prior re-ranks outputs from the domain-expert language model using beam search, ensuring guideline adherence. Experimental results show that GuidedTOD significantly improves guideline compliance, achieving approximately 20% better action prediction accuracy than state-of-the-art solutions. Code is available here: https://github.com/cure-lab/GuidedTOD.

In the era of data-driven decision-making, Long-Form Table Question Answering (LFTQA) is essential for integrating structured data with complex reasoning. Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) for LFTQA, evaluating their effectiveness remains a significant challenge. We introduce LFTQA-Eval, a meta-evaluation dataset comprising 2,988 human-annotated examples, to rigorously assess the efficacy of current automated metrics in assessing LLM-based LFTQA systems, with a focus on faithfulness and comprehensiveness. Our findings reveal that existing automatic metrics poorly correlate with human judgments and fail to consistently differentiate between factually accurate responses and those that are coherent but factually incorrect. Additionally, our in-depth examination of the limitations associated with automated evaluation methods provides essential insights for the improvement of LFTQA automated evaluation.

Table data is pervasive in various industries, and its comprehension and manipulation demand significant time and effort for users seeking to extract relevant information. Consequently, an increasing number of studies have been directed towards table-to-text generation tasks. However, most existing methods are benchmarked solely on a limited number of datasets with varying configurations, leading to a lack of unified, standardized, fair, and comprehensive comparison between methods. This paper presents OpenT2T, the first open-source toolkit for table-to-text generation, designed to reproduce existing large language models (LLMs) for performance comparison and expedite the development of new models.We have implemented and compared a wide range of LLMs under zero- and few-shot settings on 9 table-to-text generation datasets, covering data insight generation, table summarization, and free-form table question answering. Additionally, we maintain a public leaderboard to provide insights for future work into how to choose appropriate table-to-text generation systems for real-world scenarios.