Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), aligning model behavior with human preferences. However, existing benchmarks for reward models show a weak correlation with the performance of optimized policies, suggesting that they fail to accurately assess the true capabilities of RMs. To bridge this gap, we explore several evaluation designs through the lens of reward overoptimization, i.e., a phenomenon that captures both how well the reward model aligns with human preferences and the dynamics of the learning signal it provides to the policy. The results highlight three key findings on how to construct a reliable benchmark: (i) it is important to minimize differences between chosen and rejected responses beyond correctness, (ii) evaluating reward models requires multiple comparisons across a wide range of chosen and rejected responses, and (iii) given that reward models encounter responses with diverse representations, responses should be sourced from a variety of models. However, we also observe that a extremely high correlation with degree of overoptimization leads to comparatively lower correlation with certain downstream performance. Thus, when designing a benchmark, it is desirable to use the degree of overoptimization as a useful tool, rather than the end goal.

With the release of R1, a publicly available large reasoning model (LRM), researchers commonly train new LRMs by training language models on R1’s long chain-of-thought (CoT) inferences. While prior works show that LRMs’ capabilities can be reproduced through direct distillation, the continued reliance on the existing models (e.g., R1) remains a critical limitation in advancing the field.As a first step toward independent LRM development, this paper explores the possibility of constructing a long CoT dataset with LLMs that are not trained for inference-time scaling.To this end, we present the Long CoT Collection, a dataset of 100K CoT rationales annotated using existing short CoT LLMs. We develop a pipeline that induces o1’s novel reasoning strategies into short CoT LLMs, enabling them to think longer and introducing controllability over the thought budget to better manage the overthinking problem.Our extensive analyses validate that our dataset achieves quality comparable to—or slightly below—R1. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that training on our dataset not only strengthens general reasoning skills, but also provides a strong foundation for reinforcement learning—models initialized on our data achieve 2-3x larger gains with RLVR. We make the codes, datasets, and models publicly available at LINK.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their adaptation in various domains as conversational agents. We wonder: can personality tests be applied to these agents to analyze their behavior, similar to humans? We introduce TRAIT, a new benchmark consisting of 8K multi-choice questions designed to assess the personality of LLMs. TRAIT is built on two psychometrically validated small human questionnaires, Big Five Inventory (BFI) and Short Dark Triad (SD-3), enhanced with the ATOMIC-10X knowledge graph to a variety of real-world scenarios. TRAIT also outperforms existing personality tests for LLMs in terms of reliability and validity, achieving the highest scores across four key metrics: Content Validity, Internal Validity, Refusal Rate, and Reliability. Using TRAIT, we reveal two notable insights into personalities of LLMs: 1) LLMs exhibit distinct and consistent personality, which is highly influenced by their training data (e.g., data used for alignment tuning), and 2) current prompting techniques have limited effectiveness in eliciting certain traits, such as high psychopathy or low conscientiousness, suggesting the need for further research in this direction.

Understanding clients’ thoughts and beliefs is fundamental in counseling, yet current evaluations of LLM therapists often fail to assess this ability. Existing evaluation methods rely on client simulators that clearly disclose internal states to the therapist, making it difficult to determine whether an LLM therapist can uncover unexpressed perspectives. To address this limitation, we introduce MindVoyager, a novel evaluation framework featuring a controllable and realistic client simulator which dynamically adapts itself based on the ongoing counseling session, offering a more realistic and challenging evaluation environment. We further introduce evaluation metrics that assess the exploration ability of LLM therapists by measuring their thorough understanding of client’s beliefs and thoughts.

As language models (LMs) become capable of handling a wide range of tasks, their evaluation is becoming as challenging as their development. Most generation benchmarks currently assess LMs using abstract evaluation criteria-like helpfulness and harmlessness-which often lack the flexibility and granularity of human assessment. Additionally, these benchmarks tend to focus disproportionately on specific capabilities such as instruction following, leading to coverage bias. To overcome these limitations, we introduce the BiGGen Bench, a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation. We apply this benchmark to assess 100 frontier LMs using five evaluator LMs. Our code, data, and evaluation results are all publicly available at https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-eval.

To achieve lifelong human-agent interaction, dialogue agents need to constantly memorize perceived information and properly retrieve it for response generation (RG). While prior studies focus on getting rid of outdated memories to improve retrieval quality, we argue that such memories provide rich, important contextual cues for RG (e.g., changes in user behaviors) in long-term conversations. We present THEANINE, a framework for LLM-based lifelong dialogue agents. THEANINE discards memory removal and manages large-scale memories by linking them based on their temporal and cause-effect relation. Enabled by this linking structure, THEANINE augments RG with memory timelines - series of memories representing the evolution or causality of relevant past events. Along with THEANINE, we introduce TeaFarm, a counterfactual-driven evaluation scheme, addressing the limitation of G-Eval and human efforts when assessing agent performance in integrating past memories into RG. A supplementary video for THEANINE and data for TeaFarm are at https://huggingface.co/spaces/ResearcherScholar/Theanine.

Recent approaches in domain-specific named entity recognition (NER), such as biomedical NER, have shown remarkable advances. However, they still lack of faithfulness, producing erroneous predictions. We assume that knowledge of entities can be useful in verifying the correctness of the predictions. Despite the usefulness of knowledge, resolving such errors with knowledge is nontrivial, since the knowledge itself does not directly indicate the ground-truth label. To this end, we propose VerifiNER, a post-hoc verification framework that identifies errors from existing NER methods using knowledge and revises them into more faithful predictions. Our framework leverages the reasoning abilities of large language models to adequately ground on knowledge and the contextual information in the verification process. We validate effectiveness of VerifiNER through extensive experiments on biomedical datasets. The results suggest that VerifiNER can successfully verify errors from existing models as a model-agnostic approach. Further analyses on out-of-domain and low-resource settings show the usefulness of VerifiNER on real-world applications.

Recent studies have investigated utilizing Knowledge Graphs (KGs) to enhance Quesetion Answering (QA) performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet structured KG verbalization remains challenging. Existing methods, like concatenation or free-form textual conversion of triples, have limitations, including duplicated entities or relations, reduced evidence density, and failure to highlight crucial evidence. To address these issues, we propose EFSum, an Evidence-focused Fact Summarization framework for enhanced QA with knowledge-augmented LLMs. We optimize an LLM as a fact summarizer through distillation and preference alignment. Our extensive expeirments show that EFSum improves LLM’s zero-shot QA performance with its helpful and faithful summaries, especially when noisy facts are retrieved.

Algorithmic reasoning tasks that involve complex logical patterns, such as completing Dyck language, pose challenges for large language models (LLMs), despite their recent success. Prior work has used LLMs to generate programming language and applied external compilers for such tasks. Yet, when on the fly, it is hard to generate an executable code with the correct logic for the solution. Even so, code for one instance cannot be reused for others, although they might require the same logic to solve. We present Think-and-Execute, a novel framework that improves LLMs’ algorithmic reasoning: (1) In Think, we discover task-level logic shared across all instances, and express such logic with pseudocode; (2) In Execute, we tailor the task-level pseudocode to each instance and simulate the execution of it. Think-and-Execute outperforms several strong baselines (including CoT and PoT) in diverse algorithmic reasoning tasks. We manifest the advantage of using task-level pseudocode over generating instance-specific solutions one by one. Also, we show that pseudocode can better improve LMs’ reasoning than natural language (NL) guidance, even though they are trained with NL instructions.

This paper presents Coffee-Gym, a comprehensive RL environment for training models that provide feedback on code editing. Coffee-Gym includes two major components: (1) Coffee, a dataset containing humans’ code edit traces for coding questions and human-written feedback for editing erroneous code; (2) CoffeeEval, a reward function that faithfully reflects the helpfulness of feedback by assessing the performance of the revised code in unit tests. With them, Coffee-Gym addresses the unavailability of high-quality datasets for training feedback models with RL, and provides more accurate rewards than the SOTA reward model (i.e., GPT-4). By applying Coffee-Gym, we elicit feedback models that outperform baselines in enhancing open-source code LLMs’ code editing, making them comparable with closed-source LLMs. We make the dataset and the model checkpoint publicly available in https://huggingface.co/spaces/Coffee-Gym/Project-Coffee-Gym.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enables large language models (LLMs) to solve complex reasoning tasks by generating an explanation before the final prediction. Despite it’s promising ability, a critical downside of CoT prompting is that the performance is greatly affected by the factuality of the generated explanation. To improve the correctness of the explanations, fine-tuning language models with explanation data is needed. However, there exists only a few datasets that can be used for such approaches, and no data collection tool for building them. Thus, we introduce CoTEVer, a tool-kit for annotating the factual correctness of generated explanations and collecting revision data of wrong explanations. Furthermore, we suggest several use cases where the data collected with CoTEVer can be utilized for enhancing the faithfulness of explanations. Our toolkit is publicly available at https://github.com/SeungoneKim/CoTEVer.

Human-like chatbots necessitate the use of commonsense reasoning in order to effectively comprehend and respond to implicit information present within conversations. Achieving such coherence and informativeness in responses, however, is a non-trivial task. Even for large language models (LLMs), the task of identifying and aggregating key evidence within a single hop presents a substantial challenge. This complexity arises because such evidence is scattered across multiple turns in a conversation, thus necessitating integration over multiple hops. Hence, our focus is to facilitate such multi-hop reasoning over a dialogue context, namely dialogue chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. To this end, we propose a knowledge distillation framework that leverages LLMs as unreliable teachers and selectively distills consistent and helpful rationales via alignment filters. We further present DOCTOR, a DialOgue Chain-of-ThOught Reasoner that provides reliable CoT rationales for response generation. We conduct extensive experiments to show that enhancing dialogue agents with high-quality rationales from DOCTOR significantly improves the quality of their responses.

In this paper, we propose to leverage the unique characteristics of dialogues sharing commonsense knowledge across participants, to resolve the difficulties in summarizing them. We present SICK, a framework that uses commonsense inferences as additional context. Compared to previous work that solely relies on the input dialogue, SICK uses an external knowledge model to generate a rich set of commonsense inferences and selects the most probable one with a similarity-based selection method. Built upon SICK, SICK++ utilizes commonsense as supervision, where the task of generating commonsense inferences is added upon summarizing the dialogue in a multi-task learning setting. Experimental results show that with injected commonsense knowledge, our framework generates more informative and consistent summaries than existing methods.