Recent studies have evaluated creativity, where novelty is an important aspect, of large language models (LLMs) primarily from a semantic perspective, using benchmarks from cognitive science. However, assessing the novelty in scholarly publications, a critical facet of evaluating LLMs as scientific discovery assistants, remains underexplored, despite its potential to accelerate research cycles and prioritize high-impact contributions in scientific workflows. We introduce SchNovel, a benchmark to evaluate LLMs’ ability to assess novelty in scholarly papers, a task central to streamlining discovery pipeline. SchNovel consists of 15000 pairs of papers across six fields sampled from the arXiv dataset with publication dates spanning 2 to 10 years apart. In each pair, the more recently published paper is assumed to be more novel. Additionally, we propose RAG-Novelty, a retrieval-augmented method that mirrors human peer review by grounding novelty assessment in retrieved context. Extensive experiments provide insights into the capabilities of different LLMs to assess novelty and demonstrate that RAG-Novelty outperforms recent baseline models highlight LLMs’ promise as tools for automating novelty detection in scientific workflows.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has recently gained significant attention for its enhanced ability to integrate external knowledge sources into open-domain question answering (QA) tasks. However, it remains unclear how these models address fairness concerns, particularly with respect to sensitive attributes such as gender, geographic location, and other demographic factors. First, as language models evolve to prioritize utility, like improving exact match accuracy, fairness considerations may have been largely overlooked. Second, the complex, multi-component architecture of RAG methods poses challenges in identifying and mitigating biases, as each component is optimized for distinct objectives. In this paper, we aim to empirically evaluate fairness in several RAG methods. We propose a fairness evaluation framework tailored to RAG, using scenario-based questions and analyzing disparities across demographic attributes. Our experimental results indicate that, despite recent advances in utility-driven optimization, fairness issues persist in both the retrieval and generation stages. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address fairness concerns throughout the RAG pipeline. The dataset and code used in this study are publicly available at this GitHub Repository.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various natural language processing tasks but struggle with hallucination issues. Existing solutions have considered utilizing LLMs’ inherent reasoning abilities to alleviate hallucination, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. However, these methods often overtrust LLMs’ initial answers due to inherent biases. The key to alleviating this issue lies in overriding LLMs’ inherent biases for answer inspection. To this end, we propose a CounterFactual Multi-Agent Debate (CFMAD) framework. CFMAD presets the stances of LLMs to override their inherent biases by compelling LLMs to generate justifications for a predetermined answer’s correctness. The LLMs with different predetermined stances are engaged with a skeptical critic for counterfactual debate on the rationality of generated justifications. Finally, the debate process is evaluated by a third-party judge to determine the final answer. Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of CFMAD over existing methods.

The growing importance of textual and relational systems has driven interest in enhancing large language models (LLMs) for graph-structured data, particularly Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs), where samples are represented by textual descriptions interconnected by edges. While research has largely focused on developing specialized graph LLMs through task-specific instruction tuning, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs solely through prompt design remains surprisingly absent. Without such a carefully crafted evaluation benchmark, most if not all, tailored graph LLMs are compared against general LLMs using simplistic queries (e.g., zero-shot reasoning with LLaMA), which can potentially camouflage many advantages as well as unexpected predicaments of them. To achieve more general evaluations and unveil the true potential of LLMs for graph tasks, we introduce Graph In-context Learning (GraphICL) Benchmark, a comprehensive benchmark comprising novel prompt templates designed to capture graph structure and handle limited label knowledge. Our systematic evaluation shows that general-purpose LLMs equipped with our GraphICL outperform state-of-the-art specialized graph LLMs and graph neural network models in resource-constrained settings and out-of-domain tasks. These findings highlight the significant potential of prompt engineering to enhance LLM performance on graph learning tasks without training and offer a strong baseline for advancing research in graph LLMs.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled automatic generation of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, leading to strong performance on tasks such as math and code. However, when reasoning steps reflect social stereotypes (e.g., those related to gender, race or age), they can reinforce harmful associations and lead to misleading conclusions. We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within LLM-generated reasoning, using the BBQ dataset to analyze both prediction accuracy and bias. Our study spans a wide range of mainstream reasoning models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 (8B/32B), ChatGPT, and other open-source LLMs. We quantify how biased reasoning steps correlate with incorrect predictions and often lead to stereotype expression. To mitigate reasoning-induced bias, we propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps. ADBP outperforms a stereotype-free baseline in most cases, mitigating bias and improving the accuracy of LLM outputs.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently achieved significant progress, demonstrating strong capabilities in open-world visual understanding. However, it is not yet clear how LVLMs address demographic biases in real life, especially the disparities across attributes such as gender, skin tone, age and race. In this paper, We empirically investigate visual fairness in several mainstream LVLMs by auditing their performance disparities across demographic attributes using public fairness benchmark datasets (e.g., FACET, UTKFace). Our fairness evaluation framework employs direct and single-choice question prompt on visual question-answering/classification tasks. Despite advancements in visual understanding, our zero-shot prompting results show that both open-source and closed-source LVLMs continue to exhibit fairness issues across different prompts and demographic groups. Furthermore, we propose a potential multi-modal Chain-of-thought (CoT) based strategy for unfairness mitigation, applicable to both open-source and closed-source LVLMs. This approach enhances transparency and offers a scalable solution for addressing fairness, providing a solid foundation for future research and practical efforts in unfairness mitigation. The dataset and code used in this study are publicly available at this GitHub Repository.

Product attribute value extraction involves identifying the specific values associated with various attributes from a product profile. While existing methods often prioritize the development of effective models to improve extraction performance, there has been limited emphasis on extraction efficiency. However, in real-world scenarios, products are typically associated with multiple attributes, necessitating multiple extractions to obtain all corresponding values. In this work, we propose an Efficient product Attribute Value Extraction (EAVE) approach via lightweight sparse-layer interaction. Specifically, we employ a heavy encoder to separately encode the product context and attribute. The resulting non-interacting heavy representations of the context can be cached and reused for all attributes. Additionally, we introduce a light encoder to jointly encode the context and the attribute, facilitating lightweight interactions between them. To enrich the interaction within the lightweight encoder, we design a sparse-layer interaction module to fuse the non-interacting heavy representation into the lightweight encoder. Comprehensive evaluation on two benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves significant efficiency gains with neutral or marginal loss in performance when the context is long and number of attributes is large. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/EAVE-EA18.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in information retrieval has raised a critical reevaluation of fairness in the text-ranking models. LLMs, such as GPT models and Llama2, have shown effectiveness in natural language understanding tasks, and prior works such as RankGPT have demonstrated that the LLMs have better performance than the traditional ranking models in the ranking task. However, their fairness remains largely unexplored. This paper presents an empirical study evaluating these LLMs using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset, focusing on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms. We assess fairness from both user and content perspectives, contributing an empirical benchmark for evaluating LLMs as the fair ranker.