Designing solutions for complex engineering challenges is crucial in human production activities. However, previous research in the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) field has not sufficiently addressed tasks related to the design of complex engineering solutions. To fill this gap, we introduce a new benchmark, SolutionBench, to evaluate a system’s ability to generate complete and feasible solutions for engineering problems with multiple complex constraints. To further advance the design of complex engineering solutions, we propose a novel system, SolutionRAG, that leverages the tree-based exploration and bi-point thinking mechanism to generate reliable solutions. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that SolutionRAG achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the SolutionBench, highlighting its potential to enhance the automation and reliability of complex engineering solution design in real-world applications.

Understanding the mechanisms underlying Large Language Model (LLM) behavior in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems is critical for enhancing reliability. In this paper, we leverage Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) within the LLaMA Scope to uncover sparse, interpretable latents that govern RAG behaviors. Through systematic analysis of SAE activations, we identify specific latents associated with two fundamental RAG decisions: (1) context versus memory prioritization, and (2) response generation versus query rejection. Intervention experiments demonstrate that these latents enable precise control over model behavior and maintain generalizability across various experimental settings. Mechanistic analysis reveals that manipulating these latents influences model behavior by reconfiguring attention patterns of retrieval heads. Our findings establish SAEs as a principled tool for understanding and controlling RAG behaviors, demonstrating capabilities in precise behavior steering without architectural modifications.

The effectiveness of open-domain question answering (ODQA), particularly those employing a retriever-reader architecture, depends on the ability to recall relevant documents - a critical step that enables the reader to accurately extract answers. To enhance this retrieval phase, current query expansion (QE) techniques leverage pre-trained language models (PLM) to mitigate word mismatches and improve the recall of relevant documents. Despite their advancements, these techniques often treat all expanded terms uniformly, which can lead to less-than-optimal retrieval outcomes. In response, we propose a novel Recall-oriented Adaptive Learning (ReAL) method, which iteratively adjusts the importance weights of QE terms based on their relevance, thereby refining term distinction and enhancing the separation of relevant terms. Specifically, ReAL employs a similarity-based model to classify documents into pseudo-relevant and pseudo-irrelevant sets, and then optimizes term weights via two tailored loss functions to maximize the scoring gap between them. Experiments on four ODQA datasets and five QE methods show that ReAL consistently enhances retrieval accuracy and overall end-to-end QA performance, providing a robust and efficient solution for improving QE strategies in ODQA scenarios.

Entity matching (EM) is a critical step in entity resolution (ER). Recently, entity matching based on large language models (LLMs) has shown great promise. However, current LLM-based entity matching approaches typically follow a binary matching paradigm that ignores the global consistency among record relationships. In this paper, we investigate various methodologies for LLM-based entity matching that incorporate record interactions from different perspectives. Specifically, we comprehensively compare three representative strategies: matching, comparing, and selecting, and analyze their respective advantages and challenges in diverse scenarios. Based on our findings, we further design a compound entity matching framework (ComEM) that leverages the composition of multiple strategies and LLMs. ComEM benefits from the advantages of different sides and achieves improvements in both effectiveness and efficiency. Experimental results on 8 ER datasets and 10 LLMs verify the superiority of incorporating record interactions through the selecting strategy, as well as the further cost-effectiveness brought by ComEM.

Open-Domain Question Answering (ODQA) systems often struggle with the quality of retrieved passages, which may contain conflicting information and be misaligned with the reader’s needs. Existing retrieval methods aim to gather relevant passages but often fail to prioritize consistent and useful information for the reader. In this paper, we introduce a novel Reader-Centered Passage Selection (R-CPS) method, which enhances the performance of the retrieve-then-read pipeline by re-ranking and clustering passages from the reader’s perspective. Our method re-ranks passages based on the reader’s prediction probability distribution and clusters passages according to the predicted answers, prioritizing more useful and relevant passages to the top and reducing inconsistent information. Experiments on ODQA datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in improving the quality of evidence passages under zero-shot settings.

In argumentation, the claim is the foundational proposition that underpins the argument, serving as the central pillar upon which the argument is constructed. It guides the subsequent presentation of evidence, reasoning, and analysis, thereby facilitating the audience’s understanding of the core issue. Therefore, ensuring that the claim is precise and unambiguous is crucial for constructing a coherent and persuasive argument. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in text rewriting tasks such as style transfer and query rewriting, their application to claim optimization remains unexplored. Unlike other rewriting tasks, claim clarification requires the model to rewrite ambiguous or unclear segments of the claim, enhance the content by adding omitted key details, and eliminate redundant or verbose elements. Addressing this gap, this paper evaluates the performance of LLMs on the claim clarification task across various settings. While popular rewriting evaluation methods such as BLEU and Rouge rely on exact word matching, this paper introduces a novel semantic evaluation approach based on a sliding window mechanism. Three distinct LLMs, including LLama2, Mistral, and Qwen2, are assessed for their ability to clarify arguments through zero-shot or few-shot prompting, and supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Additionally, we propose a reinforcement learning-based clarification approach that optimally balances content preservation with claim clarity, thereby augmenting the performance of LLMs on the claim clarification task.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable multilingual abilities in various applications. Unfortunately, recent studies have discovered that there exist notable disparities in their performance across different languages. Understanding the underlying mechanisms behind such disparities is crucial ensuring equitable access to LLMs for a global user base. Therefore, this paper conducts a systematic investigation into the behaviors of LLMs across 27 different languages on 3 different scenarios, and reveals a Linguistic Map correlates with the richness of available resources and linguistic family relations. Specifically, high-resource languages within specific language family exhibit greater knowledge consistency and mutual information dissemination, while isolated or low-resource languages tend to remain marginalized. Our research sheds light on a deep understanding of LLM’s cross-language behavior, highlights the inherent biases in LLMs within multilingual environments and underscores the need to address these inequities.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in coding tasks like code generation and debugging. However, code from real-world users is often poorly styled, containing various types of noise, such as structural inconsistencies, stylistic deviations and flawed test cases. To investigate this, we first simulate poorly styled code using eight types of code perturbations, and then demonstrate that the debugging performance of existing LLM-based methods significantly declines on such inputs. Furthermore, to address this, we propose a novel debugging method called Code-SPA, which aligns noisy code with the well-structured style familiar to LLMs, mitigating the impact of stylistic inconsistencies. Specifically, Code-SPA extracts the model’s preferred coding style from a reference snippet, then adjusts the input code by Concrete Syntax Tree (CST)-based transformations and LLM-assisted refinements before debugging. By aligning the code style preference, Code-SPA enhances the debugging performance of both code-specific and general-purpose LLMs on both poorly and well-styled code across the HumanEval, MBPP and EvalPlus datasets.

Document Structured Extraction (DSE) aims to extract structured content from raw documents. Despite the emergence of numerous DSE systems, their unified evaluation remains inadequate, significantly hindering the field’s advancement. This problem is largely attributed to existing benchmark paradigms, which exhibit fragmented and localized characteristics. To offer a thorough evaluation of DSE systems, we introduce a novel benchmark named READoc, which defines DSE as a realistic task of converting unstructured PDFs into semantically rich Markdown. The READoc dataset is derived from 3,576 diverse and real-world documents from arXiv, GitHub, and Zenodo. In addition, we develop a DSE Evaluation S³uite comprising Standardization, Segmentation and Scoring modules, to conduct a unified evaluation of state-of-the-art DSE approaches. By evaluating a range of pipeline tools, expert visual models, and general Vision-Language Models, we identify the gap between current work and the unified, realistic DSE objective for the first time. We aspire that READoc will catalyze future research in DSE, fostering more comprehensive and practical solutions.

Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP) demonstrates impressive effectiveness in zero-shot document re-ranking tasks with large language models (LLMs). However, in the existing methods, PRP only outputs the same label for the comparison results of different confidence intervals without considering the uncertainty of pairwise comparison, which implies an underutilization of the generation probability information of LLMs. To bridge this gap, we propose PRP-Graph, a novel pairwise re-ranking approach, based on a refined scoring PRP unit that exploits the output probabilities of target labels to capture the degree of certainty of the comparison results. Specifically, the PRP-Graph consists of two stages, namely ranking graph construction and ranking graph aggregation. Extensive experiments conducted on the BEIR benchmark demonstrate the superiority of our approach over existing PRP-based methods. Comprehensive analysis reveals that the PRP-Graph displays strong robustness towards the initial ranking order and delivers exceptional re-ranking results with acceptable efficiency. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Memelank/PRP-Graph.

Document logical structuring aims to extract the underlying hierarchical structure of documents, which is crucial for document intelligence. Traditional approaches often fall short in handling the complexity and the variability of lengthy documents. To address these issues, we introduce Seg2Act, an end-to-end, generation-based method for document logical structuring, revisiting logical structure extraction as an action generation task. Specifically, given the text segments of a document, Seg2Act iteratively generates the action sequence via a global context-aware generative model, and simultaneously updates its global context and current logical structure based on the generated actions. Experiments on ChCatExt and HierDoc datasets demonstrate the superior performance of Seg2Act in both supervised and transfer learning settings.

Query expansion (QE) is a critical component in the open-domain question answering (OpenQA) pipeline, enhancing the retrieval performance by broadening the scope of queries with additional relevant texts. However, existing methods like GAR and EAR rely heavily on supervised training and often struggle to maintain effectiveness across domains and datasets. Meanwhile, although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated QE capability for information retrieval (IR) tasks, their application in OpenQA is hindered by the inadequate analysis of query’s informational needs and the lack of quality control for generated QEs, failing to meet the unique requirements of OpenQA. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel LLM-based QE approach named AGR for the OpenQA task, leveraging a three-step prompting strategy. AGR begins with an analysis of the query, followed by the generation of answer-oriented expansions, and culminates with a refinement process for better query formulation. Extensive experiments on four OpenQA datasets reveal that AGR not only rivals in-domain supervised methods in retrieval accuracy, but also outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in out-domain zero-shot scenarios. Moreover, it exhibits enhanced performance in end-to-end QA evaluations, underscoring the superiority of AGR for OpenQA.

Recently, there has been an increased emphasis on assessing the quality of natural language arguments. Existing approaches primarily focus on evaluating the quality of individual argument posts. However, they often fall short when it comes to effectively distinguishing arguments that possess a narrow quality margin. To address this limitation, this paper delves into two alternative methods for modeling the relative quality of different arguments. These approaches include: 1) Supervised contrastive learning that captures the intricate interactions between arguments. By incorporating this approach, we aim to enhance the assessment of argument quality by effectively distinguishing between arguments with subtle differences in quality. 2) Large language models (LLMs) with in-context examples that harness the power of LLMs and enrich them with in-context examples. Through extensive evaluation and analysis on the publicly available IBM-Rank-30k dataset, we demonstrate the superiority of our contrastive argument quality assessment approach over state-of-the-art baselines. On the other hand, while LLMs with in-context examples showcase a commendable ability to identify high-quality argument posts, they exhibit relatively limited efficacy in discerning between argument posts with a narrow quality gap.

Adversarial attacks have gained traction in order to identify vulnerabilities in neural ranking models (NRMs), but current attack methods often introduce noticeable errors. Moreover, current methods rely heavily on using a well-imitated surrogate NRM to guarantee the attack effect, making them difficult to use in practice. This paper proposes a framework called Imperceptible DocumEnt Manipulation (IDEM) to produce adversarial documents that are less noticeable to both algorithms and humans. IDEM instructs a well-established generative language model like BART to generate error-free connection sentences, and employs a separate position-wise merging strategy to balance between relevance and coherence of the perturbed text. Evaluation results on the MS MARCO benchmark demonstrate that IDEM outperforms strong baselines while preserving fluency and correctness of the target documents. Furthermore, the separation of adversarial text generation from the surrogate NRM makes IDEM more robust and less affected by the quality of the surrogate NRM.