Data contamination hinders fair LLM evaluation by introducing test data into newer models’ training sets. Existing studies solve this challenge by updating benchmarks with newly collected data. However, they fail to guarantee contamination-free evaluation as the newly collected data may contain pre-existing knowledge, and their benchmark updates rely on intensive human labor. To address these issues, we in this paper propose AntiLeak-Bench, an automated anti-leakage benchmarking framework. Instead of simply using newly collected data, we construct samples with explicitly new knowledge absent from LLMs’ training sets, which thus ensures strictly contamination-free evaluation. We further design a fully automated workflow to build and update our benchmark without human labor. This significantly reduces the cost of benchmark maintenance to accommodate emerging LLMs. Through extensive experiments, we highlight that data contamination likely exists before LLMs’ cutoff time and demonstrate AntiLeak-Bench effectively overcomes this challenge.

This paper introduces RuleArena, a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning. Covering three practical domains – airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations – RuleArena assesses LLMs’ proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions that demand long-context understanding, logical reasoning, and accurate mathematical computation. Two key attributes distinguish RuleArena from traditional rule-based reasoning benchmarks: (1) it extends beyond standard first-order logic representations, and (2) it is grounded in authentic, practical scenarios, providing insights into the suitability and reliability of LLMs for real-world applications. Our findings reveal several notable limitations in LLMs: (1) they struggle to identify and apply the appropriate rules, frequently becoming confused by similar but distinct regulations, (2) they cannot consistently perform accurate mathematical computations, even when they correctly identify the relevant rules, and (3) in general, they perform poorly in the benchmark. These results highlight significant challenges in advancing LLMs’ rule-guided reasoning capabilities in real-life applications.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has significantly enhanced the capabilities of AI-driven agents across various tasks. However, existing agentic systems, whether based on fixed pipeline algorithms or pre-defined meta-learning frameworks, cannot search the whole agent design space due to the restriction of human-designed components, and thus might miss the globally optimal agent design. In this paper, we introduce Gödel Agent, a self-evolving framework inspired by the Gödel machine, enabling agents to recursively improve themselves without relying on predefined routines or fixed optimization algorithms. Gödel Agent leverages LLMs to dynamically modify its own logic and behavior, guided solely by high-level objectives through prompting. Experimental results on mathematical reasoning and complex agent tasks demonstrate that implementation of Gödel Agent can achieve continuous self-improvement, surpassing manually crafted agents in performance, efficiency, and generalizability.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit limited ability to understand table structures and to apply precise numerical reasoning, which is crucial for tasks such as table question answering (TQA) and table-based fact verification (TFV). To address these challenges, we introduce our Tool-Augmented Reasoning framework for Tables (TART), which integrates LLMs with specialized tools. TART contains three key components: a table formatter to ensure accurate data representation, a tool maker to develop specific computational tools, and an explanation generator to maintain explainability. We also present the TOOLTAB dataset, a new benchmark designed specifically for training LLMs in table-tool integration. Our experiments indicate that TART achieves substantial improvements over existing methods (e.g., Chain-of-Thought) by improving both the precision of data processing and the clarity of the reasoning process. Notably, TART paired with CodeLlama achieves 90.0% of the accuracy of the closed-sourced LLM GPT-3.5-turbo, highlighting its robustness in diverse real-world scenarios.

Understanding documents with rich layouts and multi-modal components is a long-standing and practical task. Recent Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have made remarkable strides in various tasks, particularly in single-page document understanding (DU). However, their abilities on long-context DU remain an open problem. This work presents MMLongBench-Doc, a long-context, multi-modal benchmark comprising 1,062 expert-annotated questions. Distinct from previous datasets, it is constructed upon 130 lengthy PDF-formatted documents with an average of 49.4 pages and 20,971 textual tokens. Towards comprehensive evaluation, answers to these questions rely on pieces of evidence from (1) different sources (text, image, chart, table, and layout structure) and (2) various locations (i.e. page number). Moreover, 33.2% of the questions are cross-page questions requiring evidence across multiple pages. 22.8% of the questions are designed to be unanswerable for detecting potential hallucinations. Experiments on 14 LVLMs demonstrate that long-context DU greatly challenges current models. Notably, the best-performing model, GPT-4o, achieves an F1 score of only 42.7%, while the second-best, GPT-4V, scores 31.4%. Furthermore, 12 LVLMs (all except GPT-4o and GPT-4V) even present worse performance than their LLM counterparts which are fed with lossy-parsed OCR documents. These results validate the necessity of future research toward more capable long-context LVLMs.

Knowledge editing aims to inject knowledge updates into language models to keep them correct and up-to-date. However, its current evaluation strategies are notably impractical: they solely update with well-curated structured facts (triplets with subjects, relations, and objects), whereas real-world knowledge updates commonly emerge in unstructured texts like news articles. In this paper, we propose a new benchmark, Unstructured Knowledge Editing (UKE). It evaluates editing performance directly using unstructured texts as knowledge updates, termed unstructured facts. Hence UKE avoids the laborious construction of structured facts and enables efficient and responsive knowledge editing, becoming a more practical benchmark. We conduct extensive experiments on newly built datasets and demonstrate that UKE poses a significant challenge to state-of-the-art knowledge editing methods, resulting in their critical performance declines. We further show that this challenge persists even if we extract triplets as structured facts. Our analysis discloses key insights to motivate future research in UKE for more practical knowledge editing.

The burgeoning capabilities of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have led to an increase in synthetic content generation with implications across a variety of sectors, including media, cybersecurity, public discourse, and education. As such, the ability to detect LLMs-generated content has become of paramount importance. We aim to provide a detailed overview of existing detection strategies and benchmarks, scrutinizing their differences and identifying key challenges and prospects in the field, advocating for more adaptable and robust models to enhance detection accuracy. We also posit the necessity for a multi-faceted approach to defend against various attacks to counter the rapidly advancing capabilities of LLMs. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first comprehensive survey on the detection in the era of LLMs. We hope it will provide a broad understanding of the current landscape of LLMs-generated content detection, offering a guiding reference for researchers and practitioners striving to uphold the integrity of digital information in an era increasingly dominated by synthetic content.

While large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable effectiveness in various NLP tasks, they are still prone to issues such as hallucination, unfaithful reasoning, and toxicity. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is correcting LLMs with feedback, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided with feedback to fix problems in its own output. Techniques leveraging automated feedback—either produced by the LLM itself (self-correction) or some external system—are of particular interest as they make LLM-based solutions more practical and deployable with minimal human intervention. This paper provides an exhaustive review of the recent advances in correcting LLMs with automated feedback, categorizing them into training-time, generation-time, and post-hoc approaches. We also identify potential challenges and future directions in this emerging field.

While the recent Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique enhances the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) with the theory of mind, it might still struggle in handling logical reasoning that relies much on symbolic expressions and rigid deducing rules. To strengthen the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a novel Symbolic Chain-of-Thought, namely SymbCoT, a fully LLM-based framework that integrates symbolic expressions and logic rules with CoT prompting. Technically, building upon an LLM, SymbCoT 1) first translates the natural language context into the symbolic format, and then 2) derives a step-by-step plan to solve the problem with symbolic logical rules, 3) followed by a verifier to check the translation and reasoning chain. Via thorough evaluations on 5 standard datasets with both First-Order Logic and Constraint Optimization symbolic expressions, SymbCoT shows striking improvements over the CoT method consistently, meanwhile refreshing the current state-of-the-art performances. We further demonstrate that our system advances in more faithful, flexible, and explainable logical reasoning. To our knowledge, this is the first to combine symbolic expressions and rules into CoT for logical reasoning with LLMs.

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We discovered that such a contrary is due to LLM’s bias in evaluating their own output. In this paper, we formally define LLM’s self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation - using two statistics. We analyze six LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Gemini, LLaMA2, Mixtral and DeepSeek) on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks. We find that self-bias is prevalent in all examined LLMs across multiple languages and tasks. Our analysis reveals that while the self-refine pipeline improves the fluency and understandability of model outputs, it further amplifies self-bias. To mitigate such biases, we discover that larger model size and external feedback with accurate assessment can significantly reduce bias in the self-refine pipeline, leading to actual performance improvement in downstream tasks.

This paper investigates the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of understanding their knowledge and uncertainty over questions. Specifically, we focus on addressing known-unknown questions, characterized by high uncertainty due to the absence of definitive answers. To facilitate our study, we collect a new dataset with Known-Unknown Questions (KUQ) and establish a categorization framework to clarify the origins of uncertainty in such queries. Subsequently, we examine the performance of open-source LLMs, fine-tuned using this dataset, in distinguishing between known and unknown queries within open-ended question-answering scenarios. The fine-tuned models demonstrated a significant improvement, achieving a considerable increase in F1-score relative to their pre-fine-tuning state. Through a comprehensive analysis, we reveal insights into the models’ improved uncertainty articulation and their consequent efficacy in multi-agent debates. These findings help us understand how LLMs can be trained to identify and express uncertainty, improving our knowledge of how they understand and express complex or unclear information.

Large language models often necessitate grounding on external knowledge to generate faithful and reliable answers. Yet even with the correct groundings in the reference, they can ignore them and rely on wrong groundings or their inherent biases to hallucinate when users, being largely unaware of the specifics of the stored information, pose questions that might not directly correlate with the retrieved groundings. In this work, we formulate this knowledge alignment problem and introduce MixAlign, a framework that interacts with both the human user and the knowledge base to obtain and integrate clarifications on how the user question relates to the stored information. MixAlign employs a language model to achieve automatic knowledge alignment and, if necessary, further enhances this alignment through human user clarifications. Experimental results highlight the crucial role of knowledge alignment in boosting model performance and mitigating hallucination, with improvements noted up to 22.2% and 27.1% respectively. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of MixAlign in improving knowledge alignment by producing high-quality, user-centered clarifications.

Pre-trained language models (LMs) are able to perform complex reasoning without explicit fine-tuning. To understand how pre-training with a next-token prediction objective contributes to the emergence of such reasoning capability, we propose that we can view an LM as deriving new conclusions by aggregating indirect reasoning paths seen at pre-training time. We found this perspective effective in two important cases of reasoning: logic reasoning with knowledge graphs (KGs) and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. More specifically, we formalize the reasoning paths as random walk paths on the knowledge/reasoning graphs. Analyses of learned LM distributions suggest that a weighted sum of relevant random walk path probabilities is a reasonable way to explain how LMs reason. Experiments and analysis on multiple KG and CoT datasets reveal the effect of training on random walk paths and suggest that augmenting unlabeled random walk reasoning paths can improve real-world multi-step reasoning performance.

Current scientific fact-checking benchmarks exhibit several shortcomings, such as biases arising from crowd-sourced claims and an over-reliance on text-based evidence. We present SCITAB, a challenging evaluation dataset consisting of 1.2K expert-verified scientific claims that 1) originate from authentic scientific publications and 2) require compositional reasoning for verification. The claims are paired with evidence-containing scientific tables annotated with labels. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that SCITAB poses a significant challenge to state-of-the-art models, including table-based pretraining models and large language models. All models except GPT-4 achieved performance barely above random guessing. Popular prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought, do not achieve much performance gains on SCITAB. Our analysis uncovers several unique challenges posed by SCITAB, including table grounding, claim ambiguity, and compositional reasoning. Our codes and data are publicly available at https://github.com/XinyuanLu00/SciTab.

Language Models (LMs) have shown impressive performance in various natural language tasks. However, when it comes to natural language reasoning, LMs still face challenges such as hallucination, generating incorrect intermediate reasoning steps, and making mathematical errors. Recent research has focused on enhancing LMs through *self-improvement* using feedback. Nevertheless, existing approaches relying on a single generic feedback source fail to address the diverse error types found in LM-generated reasoning chains. In this work, we propose **Multi-Aspect Feedback**, an iterative refinement framework that integrates multiple feedback modules, including frozen LMs and external tools, each focusing on a specific error category. Our experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach to addressing several errors in the LM-generated reasoning chain and thus improving the overall performance of an LM in several reasoning tasks. We see an improvement of up to 20% in Mathematical Reasoning and up to 18% in Logical Entailment.

Automatically evaluating the quality of language generation is critical. Although recent learned metrics show high correlation with human judgement, these metrics do not provide explicit explanation of their verdict, nor associate the scores with defects in the generated text. To address this limitation, we present INSTRUCTSCORE, a fine-grained explainable evaluation metric for text generation. By harnessing both explicit human instruction and the implicit knowledge of GPT-4, we fine-tune a text evaluation metric based on LLaMA, producing both a score for generated text and a human readable diagnostic report. We evaluate INSTRUCTSCORE on a variety of generation tasks, including translation, captioning, data-to-text, and commonsense generation. Experiments show that our 7B model surpasses all other unsupervised metrics, including those based on 175B GPT-3 and GPT-4. Surprisingly, our INSTRUCTSCORE, even without direct supervision from human-rated data, achieves performance levels on par with state-of-the-art metrics like COMET22, which were fine-tuned on human ratings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown human-like reasoning abilities but still struggle with complex logical problems. This paper introduces a novel framework, Logic-LM, which integrates LLMs with symbolic solvers to improve logical problem-solving. Our method first utilizes LLMs to translate a natural language problem into a symbolic formulation. Afterward, a deterministic symbolic solver performs inference on the formulated problem. We also introduce a self-refinement module, which utilizes the symbolic solver’s error messages to revise symbolic formalizations. We demonstrate Logic-LM’s effectiveness on five logical reasoning datasets: ProofWriter, PrOntoQA, FOLIO, LogicalDeduction, and AR-LSAT. On average, Logic-LM achieves a significant performance boost of 39.2% over using LLM alone with standard prompting and 18.4% over LLM with chain-of-thought prompting. Our findings suggest that Logic-LM, by combining LLMs with symbolic logic, offers a promising avenue for faithful logical reasoning.

We investigate the potential misuse of modern Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating credible-sounding misinformation and its subsequent impact on information-intensive applications, particularly Open-Domain Question Answering (ODQA) systems. We establish a threat model and simulate potential misuse scenarios, both unintentional and intentional, to assess the extent to which LLMs can be utilized to produce misinformation. Our study reveals that LLMs can act as effective misinformation generators, leading to a significant degradation (up to 87%) in the performance of ODQA systems. Moreover, we uncover disparities in the attributes associated with persuading humans and machines, presenting an obstacle to current human-centric approaches to combat misinformation. To mitigate the harm caused by LLM-generated misinformation, we propose three defense strategies: misinformation detection, vigilant prompting, and reader ensemble. These approaches have demonstrated promising results, albeit with certain associated costs. Lastly, we discuss the practicality of utilizing LLMs as automatic misinformation generators and provide relevant resources and code to facilitate future research in this area.

Fact-checking real-world claims often requires intricate, multi-step reasoning due to the absence of direct evidence to support or refute them. However, existing fact-checking systems often lack transparency in their decision-making, making it challenging for users to comprehend their reasoning process. To address this, we propose the Question-guided Multi-hop Fact-Checking (QACheck) system, which guides the model’s reasoning process by asking a series of questions critical for verifying a claim. QACheck has five key modules: a claim verifier, a question generator, a question-answering module, a QA validator, and a reasoner. Users can input a claim into QACheck, which then predicts its veracity and provides a comprehensive report detailing its reasoning process, guided by a sequence of (question, answer) pairs. QACheck also provides the source of evidence supporting each question, fostering a transparent, explainable, and user-friendly fact-checking process.

Fact-checking real-world claims often requires collecting multiple pieces of evidence and applying complex multi-step reasoning. In this paper, we present Program-Guided Fact-Checking (ProgramFC), a novel fact-checking model that decomposes complex claims into simpler sub-tasks that can be solved using a shared library of specialized functions. We first leverage the in-context learning ability of large language models to generate reasoning programs to guide the verification process. Afterward, we execute the program by delegating each sub-task to the corresponding sub-task handler. This process makes our model both explanatory and data-efficient, providing clear explanations of its reasoning process and requiring minimal training data. We evaluate ProgramFC on two challenging fact-checking datasets and show that it outperforms seven fact-checking baselines across different settings of evidence availability, with explicit output programs that benefit human debugging. Our codes and data are publicly available at \urlhttps://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/ProgramFC.

With a rise in false, inaccurate, and misleading information in propaganda, news, and social media, real-world Question Answering (QA) systems face the challenges of synthesizing and reasoning over misinformation-polluted contexts to derive correct answers. This urgency gives rise to the need to make QA systems robust to misinformation, a topic previously unexplored. We study the risk of misinformation to QA models by investigating the sensitivity of open-domain QA models to corpus pollution with misinformation documents. We curate both human-written and model-generated false documents that we inject into the evidence corpus of QA models and assess the impact on the performance of these systems. Experiments show that QA models are vulnerable to even small amounts of evidence contamination brought by misinformation, with large absolute performance drops on all models. Misinformation attack brings more threat when fake documents are produced at scale by neural models or the attacker targets hacking specific questions of interest. To defend against such a threat, we discuss the necessity of building a misinformation-aware QA system that integrates question-answering and misinformation detection in a joint fashion.

In this paper, we explore zero- and few-shot generalization for fact verification (FV), which aims to generalize the FV model trained on well-resourced domains (e.g., Wikipedia) to low-resourced domains that lack human annotations. To this end, we first construct a benchmark dataset collection which contains 11 FV datasets representing 6 domains. We conduct an empirical analysis of generalization across these FV datasets, finding that current models generalize poorly. Our analysis reveals that several factors affect generalization, including dataset size, length of evidence, and the type of claims. Finally, we show that two directions of work improve generalization: 1) incorporating domain knowledge via pretraining on specialized domains, and 2) automatically generating training data via claim generation.

Humans ask follow-up questions driven by curiosity, which reflects a creative human cognitive process. We introduce the task of real-world information-seeking follow-up question generation (FQG), which aims to generate follow-up questions seeking a more in-depth understanding of an initial question and answer. We construct FOLLOWUPQG, a dataset of over 3K real-world (initial question, answer, follow-up question) tuples collected from a Reddit forum providing layman-friendly explanations for open-ended questions. In contrast to existing datasets, questions in FOLLOWUPQG use more diverse pragmatic strategies to seek information, and they also show higher-order cognitive skills (such as applying and relating). We evaluate current question generation models on their efficacy for generating follow-up questions, exploring how to generate specific types of follow-up questions based on step-by-step demonstrations. Our results validate FOLLOWUPQG as a challenging benchmark, as model-generated questions are adequate but far from human-raised questions in terms of informativeness and complexity.

The data used to pretrain large language models has a decisive impact on a model’s downstream performance, which has led to a large body of work on data selection methods that aim to automatically determine the most suitable data to use for pretraining. Existing data selection methods suffer from slow and computationally expensive processes, a problem amplified by the increasing size of models and of pretraining datasets. Data mixing, on the other hand, reduces the complexity of data selection by grouping data points together and determining sampling probabilities across entire groups. However, data mixing proportions are typically fixed before training and therefore cannot adapt to changing training dynamics. To address these limitations, we develop an efficient algorithm for Online Data Mixing (ODM) that combines elements from both data selection and data mixing. Based on multi-armed bandit algorithms, our online approach optimizes the data mixing proportions during training. Remarkably, our method trains a model that reaches the final perplexity of the next best method with 19% fewer training iterations, and improves performance on the 5-shot MMLU benchmark by 1.9% relative accuracy, while adding negligible wall-clock time during pretraining.

Complex question answering over knowledge base (Complex KBQA) is challenging because it requires various compositional reasoning capabilities, such as multi-hop inference, attribute comparison, set operation, etc. Existing benchmarks have some shortcomings that limit the development of Complex KBQA: 1) they only provide QA pairs without explicit reasoning processes; 2) questions are poor in diversity or scale. To this end, we introduce KQA Pro, a dataset for Complex KBQA including around 120K diverse natural language questions. We introduce a compositional and interpretable programming language KoPL to represent the reasoning process of complex questions. For each question, we provide the corresponding KoPL program and SPARQL query, so that KQA Pro can serve for both KBQA and semantic parsing tasks. Experimental results show that state-of-the-art KBQA methods cannot achieve promising results on KQA Pro as on current datasets, which suggests that KQA Pro is challenging and Complex KBQA requires further research efforts. We also treat KQA Pro as a diagnostic dataset for testing multiple reasoning skills, conduct a thorough evaluation of existing models and discuss further directions for Complex KBQA.

Modern Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are known to be sensitive to input perturbations and their performance can decrease when applied to real-world, noisy data. However, it is still unclear why models are less robust to some perturbations than others. In this work, we test the hypothesis that the extent to which a model is affected by an unseen textual perturbation (robustness) can be explained by the learnability of the perturbation (defined as how well the model learns to identify the perturbation with a small amount of evidence). We further give a causal justification for the learnability metric. We conduct extensive experiments with four prominent NLP models — TextRNN, BERT, RoBERTa and XLNet — over eight types of textual perturbations on three datasets. We show that a model which is better at identifying a perturbation (higher learnability) becomes worse at ignoring such a perturbation at test time (lower robustness), providing empirical support for our hypothesis.

Neural models for automated fact verification have achieved promising results thanks to the availability of large, human-annotated datasets. However, for each new domain that requires fact verification, creating a dataset by manually writing claims and linking them to their supporting evidence is expensive. We develop QACG, a framework for training a robust fact verification model by using automatically generated claims that can be supported, refuted, or unverifiable from evidence from Wikipedia. QACG generates question-answer pairs from the evidence and then converts them into different types of claims. Experiments on the FEVER dataset show that our QACG framework significantly reduces the demand for human-annotated training data. In a zero-shot scenario, QACG improves a RoBERTa model’s F1 from 50% to 77%, equivalent in performance to 2K+ manually-curated examples. Our QACG code is publicly available.

Obtaining training data for multi-hop question answering (QA) is time-consuming and resource-intensive. We explore the possibility to train a well-performed multi-hop QA model without referencing any human-labeled multi-hop question-answer pairs, i.e., unsupervised multi-hop QA. We propose MQA-QG, an unsupervised framework that can generate human-like multi-hop training data from both homogeneous and heterogeneous data sources. MQA-QG generates questions by first selecting/generating relevant information from each data source and then integrating the multiple information to form a multi-hop question. Using only generated training data, we can train a competent multi-hop QA which achieves 61% and 83% of the supervised learning performance for the HybridQA and the HotpotQA dataset, respectively. We also show that pretraining the QA system with the generated data would greatly reduce the demand for human-annotated training data.

This paper proposes the problem of Deep Question Generation (DQG), which aims to generate complex questions that require reasoning over multiple pieces of information about the input passage. In order to capture the global structure of the document and facilitate reasoning, we propose a novel framework that first constructs a semantic-level graph for the input document and then encodes the semantic graph by introducing an attention-based GGNN (Att-GGNN). Afterward, we fuse the document-level and graph-level representations to perform joint training of content selection and question decoding. On the HotpotQA deep-question centric dataset, our model greatly improves performance over questions requiring reasoning over multiple facts, leading to state-of-the-art performance.

The curse of knowledge can impede communication between experts and laymen. We propose a new task of expertise style transfer and contribute a manually annotated dataset with the goal of alleviating such cognitive biases. Solving this task not only simplifies the professional language, but also improves the accuracy and expertise level of laymen descriptions using simple words. This is a challenging task, unaddressed in previous work, as it requires the models to have expert intelligence in order to modify text with a deep understanding of domain knowledge and structures. We establish the benchmark performance of five state-of-the-art models for style transfer and text simplification. The results demonstrate a significant gap between machine and human performance. We also discuss the challenges of automatic evaluation, to provide insights into future research directions.

Entity alignment (EA) aims at building a unified Knowledge Graph (KG) of rich content by linking the equivalent entities from various KGs. GNN-based EA methods present promising performance by modeling the KG structure defined by relation triples. However, attribute triples can also provide crucial alignment signal but have not been well explored yet. In this paper, we propose to utilize an attributed value encoder and partition the KG into subgraphs to model the various types of attribute triples efficiently. Besides, the performances of current EA methods are overestimated because of the name-bias of existing EA datasets. To make an objective evaluation, we propose a hard experimental setting where we select equivalent entity pairs with very different names as the test set. Under both the regular and hard settings, our method achieves significant improvements (5.10% on average Hits@1 in DBP15k) over 12 baselines in cross-lingual and monolingual datasets. Ablation studies on different subgraphs and a case study about attribute types further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Recent question generation (QG) approaches often utilize the sequence-to-sequence framework (Seq2Seq) to optimize the log likelihood of ground-truth questions using teacher forcing. However, this training objective is inconsistent with actual question quality, which is often reflected by certain global properties such as whether the question can be answered by the document. As such, we directly optimize for QG-specific objectives via reinforcement learning to improve question quality. We design three different rewards that target to improve the fluency, relevance, and answerability of generated questions. We conduct both automatic and human evaluations in addition to thorough analysis to explore the effect of each QG-specific reward. We find that optimizing on question-specific rewards generally leads to better performance in automatic evaluation metrics. However, only the rewards that correlate well with human judgement (e.g., relevance) lead to real improvement in question quality. Optimizing for the others, especially answerability, introduces incorrect bias to the model, resulting in poorer question quality.

Understanding food recipe requires anticipating the implicit causal effects of cooking actions, such that the recipe can be converted into a graph describing the temporal workflow of the recipe. This is a non-trivial task that involves common-sense reasoning. However, existing efforts rely on hand-crafted features to extract the workflow graph from recipes due to the lack of large-scale labeled datasets. Moreover, they fail to utilize the cooking images, which constitute an important part of food recipes. In this paper, we build MM-ReS, the first large-scale dataset for cooking workflow construction, consisting of 9,850 recipes with human-labeled workflow graphs. Cooking steps are multi-modal, featuring both text instructions and cooking images. We then propose a neural encoder-decoder model that utilizes both visual and textual information to construct the cooking workflow, which achieved over 20% performance gain over existing hand-crafted baselines.

Modeling the structure of culinary recipes is the core of recipe representation learning. Current approaches mostly focus on extracting the workflow graph from recipes based on text descriptions. Process images, which constitute an important part of cooking recipes, has rarely been investigated in recipe structure modeling. We study this recipe structure problem from a multi-modal learning perspective, by proposing a prerequisite tree to represent recipes with cooking images at a step-level granularity. We propose a simple-yet-effective two-stage framework to automatically construct the prerequisite tree for a recipe by (1) utilizing a trained classifier to detect pairwise prerequisite relations that fuses multi-modal features as input; then (2) applying different strategies (greedy method, maximum weight, and beam search) to build the tree structure. Experiments on the MM-ReS dataset demonstrates the advantages of introducing process images for recipe structure modeling. Also, compared with neural methods which require large numbers of training data, we show that our two-stage pipeline can achieve promising results using only 400 labeled prerequisite trees as training data.

This paper proposes a Hyperbolic Visual Embedding Learning Network for zero-shot recognition. The network learns image embeddings in hyperbolic space, which is capable of preserving the hierarchical structure of semantic classes in low dimensions. Comparing with existing zero-shot learning approaches, the network is more robust because the embedding feature in hyperbolic space better represents class hierarchy and thereby avoid misleading resulted from unrelated siblings. Our network outperforms exiting baselines under hierarchical evaluation with an extremely challenging setting, i.e., learning only from 1,000 categories to recognize 20,841 unseen categories. While under flat evaluation, it has competitive performance as state-of-the-art methods but with five times lower embedding dimensions.

Recognizing ingredients for a given dish image is at the core of automatic dietary assessment, attracting increasing attention from both industry and academia. Nevertheless, the task is challenging due to the difficulty of collecting and labeling sufficient training data. On one hand, there are hundred thousands of food ingredients in the world, ranging from the common to rare. Collecting training samples for all of the ingredient categories is difficult. On the other hand, as the ingredient appearances exhibit huge visual variance during the food preparation, it requires to collect the training samples under different cooking and cutting methods for robust recognition. Since obtaining sufficient fully annotated training data is not easy, a more practical way of scaling up the recognition is to develop models that are capable of recognizing unseen ingredients. Therefore, in this paper, we target the problem of ingredient recognition with zero training samples. More specifically, we introduce multi-relational GCN (graph convolutional network) that integrates ingredient hierarchy, attribute as well as co-occurrence for zero-shot ingredient recognition. Extensive experiments on both Chinese and Japanese food datasets are performed to demonstrate the superior performance of multi-relational GCN and shed light on zero-shot ingredients recognition.

What prerequisite knowledge should students achieve a level of mastery before moving forward to learn subsequent coursewares? We study the extent to which the prerequisite relation between knowledge concepts in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) can be inferred automatically. In particular, what kinds of information can be leverage to uncover the potential prerequisite relation between knowledge concepts. We first propose a representation learning-based method for learning latent representations of course concepts, and then investigate how different features capture the prerequisite relations between concepts. Our experiments on three datasets form Coursera show that the proposed method achieves significant improvements (+5.9-48.0% by F1-score) comparing with existing methods.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), offering a new way to study online, are revolutionizing education. One challenging issue in MOOCs is how to design effective and fine-grained course concepts such that students with different backgrounds can grasp the essence of the course. In this paper, we conduct a systematic investigation of the problem of course concept extraction for MOOCs. We propose to learn latent representations for candidate concepts via an embedding-based method. Moreover, we develop a graph-based propagation algorithm to rank the candidate concepts based on the learned representations. We evaluate the proposed method using different courses from XuetangX and Coursera. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms all the alternative methods (+0.013-0.318 in terms of R-precision; p\textless\textless0.01, t-test).