The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has extended their use to dynamic and interactive real-world applications, where models engage continuously with their environment and potentially enhance their performance over time. Most existing LLM benchmarks evaluate LLMs on i.i.d. tasks, overlooking their ability to learn iteratively from past experiences. Our paper bridges this evaluation gap by proposing a novel framework, LLM-Evolve, which extends established benchmarks to sequential problem-solving settings. LLM-Evolve evaluates LLMs over multiple rounds, providing feedback after each round to build a demonstration memory that the models can query in future tasks. We applied LLM-Evolve to the MMLU, GSM8K, and AgentBench benchmarks, testing 8 state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source models. Results show that LLMs can achieve performance improvements of up to 17% by learning from past interactions, with the quality of retrieval algorithms and feedback significantly influencing this capability. These insights advocate for more understanding and benchmarks for LLMs’ performance in evolving interactive scenarios.

As scientific research proliferates, researchers face the daunting task of navigating and reading vast amounts of literature. Existing solutions, such as document QA, fail to provide personalized and up-to-date information efficiently. We present Arxiv Copilot, a self-evolving, efficient LLM system designed to assist researchers, based on thought-retrieval, user profile and high performance optimization. Specifically, Arxiv Copilot can offer personalized research services, maintaining a real-time updated database. Quantitative evaluation demonstrates that Arxiv Copilot saves 69.92% of time after efficient deployment. This paper details the design and implementation of Arxiv Copilot, highlighting its contributions to personalized academic support and its potential to streamline the research process. We have deployed Arxiv Copilot at: https://huggingface.co/spaces/ulab-ai/ArxivCopilot.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have led to the creation of highly capable large language models (LLMs) that can perform tasks in a human-like manner. However, LLMs exhibit only infant-level cognitive abilities in certain areas. One such area is the A-Not-B error, a phenomenon seen in infants where they repeat a previously rewarded behavior despite well-observed changed conditions. This highlights their lack of inhibitory control – the ability to stop a habitual or impulsive response. In our work, we design a text-based multi-choice QA scenario similar to the A-Not-B experimental settings to systematically test the inhibitory control abilities of LLMs. We found that state-of-the-art LLMs (like Llama3-8b) perform consistently well with in-context learning (ICL) but make errors and show a significant drop of as many as 83.3% in reasoning tasks when the context changes trivially. This suggests that LLMs only have inhibitory control abilities on par with human infants in this regard, often failing to suppress the previously established response pattern during ICL.