We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 4,000 expert-annotated examples across four subsets, each focusing on a type of scenario that frequently arises in real-world financial domains. We assess a broad spectrum of 25 LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) significantly lags behind human experts. Our detailed findings and insights highlight the strengths and limitations of existing LLMs in this new task. We believe FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLM capabilities in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.

Language agents that interact with the world on their own have great potential for automating digital tasks. While large language model (LLM) agents have made progress in understanding and executing tasks such as textual games and webpage control, many real-world tasks also require collaboration with humans or other LLMs in equal roles, which involves intent understanding, task coordination, and communication. To test LLM’s ability to collaborate, we design a blocks-world environment, where two agents, each having unique goals and skills, build a target structure together. To complete the goals, they can act in the world and communicate in natural language. Under this environment, we design increasingly challenging settings to evaluate different collaboration perspectives, from independent to more complex, dependent tasks. We further adopt chain-of-thought prompts that include intermediate reasoning steps to model the partner’s state and identify and correct execution errors. Both human-machine and machine-machine experiments show that LLM agents have strong grounding capacities, and our approach significantly improves the evaluation metric.

Text-to-SQL parsing and end-to-end question answering (E2E TQA) are two main approaches for Table-based Question Answering task. Despite success on multiple benchmarks, they have yet to be compared and their synergy remains unexplored. In this paper, we identify different strengths and weaknesses through evaluating state-of-the-art models on benchmark datasets: Text-to-SQL demonstrates superiority in handling questions involving arithmetic operations and long tables; E2E TQA excels in addressing ambiguous questions, non-standard table schema, and complex table contents. To combine both strengths, we propose a Synergistic Table-based Question Answering approach that integrate different models via answer selection, which is agnostic to any model types. Further experiments validate that ensembling models by either feature-based or LLM-based answer selector significantly improves the performance over individual models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. We conduct human experiments with 80 crowdworkers to compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information—explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users’ over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.

Pre-trained language models (LMs) are capable of in-context learning (ICL): they can adapt to a task with only a few examples given in the prompt without any parameter update. However, it is unclear where this capability comes from as there is a stark distribution shift between pre-training text and ICL prompts. In this work, we study what patterns of the pre-training data contribute to ICL. We find that LMs’ ICL ability depends on parallel structures in the pre-training data—pairs of phrases following similar templates in the same context window. Specifically, we detect parallel structures by checking whether training on one phrase improves prediction of the other, and conduct ablation experiments to study their effect on ICL. We show that removing parallel structures in the pre-training data reduces LMs’ ICL accuracy by 51% (vs 2% from random ablation). This drop persists even when excluding common patterns such as n-gram repetitions and long-range dependency, showing the diversity and generality of parallel structures. A closer look at the detected parallel structures indicates that they cover diverse linguistic tasks and span long distances in the data.

Long-form Table Question Answering (LFTQA) requires systems to generate paragraph long and complex answers to questions over tabular data. While Large language models based systems have made significant progress, it often hallucinates, especially when the task involves complex reasoning over tables. To tackle this issue, we propose a new LLM-based framework, TaPERA, for LFTQA tasks. Our framework uses a modular approach that decomposes the whole process into three sub-modules: 1) QA-based Content Planner that iteratively decomposes the input question into sub-questions; 2) Execution-based Table Reasoner that produces executable Python program for each sub-question; and 3) Answer Generator that generates long-form answer grounded on the program output. Human evaluation results on the FeTaQA and QTSumm datasets indicate that our framework significantly improves strong baselines on both accuracy and truthfulness, as our modular framework is better at table reasoning, and the long-form answer is always consistent with the program output. Our modular design further provides transparency as users are able to interact with our framework by manually changing the content plans.

We introduce FinanceMath, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capabilities in solving knowledge-intensive math reasoning problems. Compared to prior works, this study features three core advancements. First, FinanceMath includes 1,200 problems with a hybrid of textual and tabular content. These problems require college-level knowledge in the finance domain for effective resolution. Second, we provide expert-annotated, detailed solution references in Python program format, ensuring a high-quality benchmark for LLM assessment. We also construct a finance-domain knowledge bank and investigate various knowledge integration strategies. Finally, we evaluate a wide spectrum of 44 LLMs with both Chain-of-Thought and Program-of-Thought prompting methods. Our experimental results reveal that the current best-performing system (i.e., GPT-4o) achieves only 60.9% accuracy using CoT prompting, leaving substantial room for improvement. Moreover, while augmenting LLMs with external knowledge can improve model performance (e.g., from 47.5% to 54.5% for Gemini-1.5-Pro), their accuracy remains significantly lower than the estimated human expert performance of 92%. We believe that FinanceMath can advance future research in the area of domain-specific knowledge retrieval and integration, particularly within the context of solving reasoning-intensive tasks.

Despite significant progress having been made in question answering on tabular data (Table QA), it’s unclear whether, and to what extent existing Table QA models are robust to task-specific perturbations, e.g., replacing key question entities or shuffling table columns. To systematically study the robustness of Table QA models, we propose a benchmark called RobuT, which builds upon existing Table QA datasets (WTQ, WikiSQL-Weak, and SQA) and includes human-annotated adversarial perturbations in terms of table header, table content, and question. Our results indicate that both state-of-the-art Table QA models and large language models (e.g., GPT-3) with few-shot learning falter in these adversarial sets. We propose to address this problem by using large language models to generate adversarial examples to enhance training, which significantly improves the robustness of Table QA models.

In-context learning (ICL) suffers from oversensitivity to the prompt, making it unreliable in real-world scenarios. We study the sensitivity of ICL with respect to multiple perturbation types. First, we find that label bias obscures the true sensitivity, and therefore prior work may have significantly underestimated ICL sensitivity. Second, we observe a strong negative correlation between ICL sensitivity and accuracy: predictions sensitive to perturbations are less likely to be correct. Motivated by these findings, we propose SenSel, a few-shot selective prediction method that abstains from sensitive predictions. Experiments on ten classification datasets show that SenSel consistently outperforms two commonly used confidence-based and entropy-based baselines on abstention decisions.

While recent large language models (LLMs) improve on various question answering (QA) datasets, it remains difficult for a single model to generalize across question types that require distinct reasoning abilities. We provide empirical evidence that state-of-the-art LLMs suffer from poor generalizability on reasoning types beyond those seen in the prompt. To remedy this, we propose a Mixture-of-Reasoning-Experts (MORE) framework that ensembles diverse specialized language models. We specialize the backbone language model with prompts optimized for different reasoning categories, including factual, multihop, mathematical, and commonsense reasoning. Our key insight is to leverage agreement among the specialized experts to select the best answer for each question, or to abstain from answering. This gives MORE higher accuracy than any single specialized model on a collection of 12 QA datasets from four reasoning types. Beyond generalizability, the interpretable design of MORE improves selective question answering results compared to baselines without incorporating inter-expert agreement. This framework is also more interpretable and useful to human consumers of QA outputs. Our human study confirms that presenting expert predictions and the answer selection process helps annotators more accurately calibrate when to trust the system’s output. We release all code and data to facilitate future work.

Applying existing question answering (QA) systems to specialized domains like law and finance presents challenges that necessitate domain expertise. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive language comprehension and in-context learning capabilities, their inability to handle very long inputs/contexts is well known. Tasks specific to these domains need significant background knowledge, leading to contexts that can often exceed the maximum length that existing LLMs can process. This study explores leveraging the semi-structured nature of legal and financial data to efficiently retrieve relevant context, enabling the use of LLMs for domain-specialized QA. The resulting system outperforms contemporary models and also provides useful explanations for the answers, encouraging the integration of LLMs into legal and financial NLP systems for future research.

Text-to-SQL parsers map natural language questions to programs that are executable over tables to generate answers, and are typically evaluated on large-scale datasets like Spider (Yu et al., 2018). We argue that existing benchmarks fail to capture a certain out-of-domain generalization problem that is of significant practical importance: matching domain specific phrases to composite operation over columns. To study this problem, we first propose a synthetic dataset along with a re-purposed train/test split of the Squall dataset (Shi et al., 2020) as new benchmarks to quantify domain generalization over column operations, and find existing state-of-the-art parsers struggle in these benchmarks. We propose to address this problem by incorporating prior domain knowledge by preprocessing table schemas, and design a method that consists of two components: schema expansion and schema pruning. This method can be easily applied to multiple existing base parsers, and we show that it significantly outperforms baseline parsers on this domain generalization problem, boosting the underlying parsers’ overall performance by up to 13.8% relative accuracy gain (5.1% absolute) on the new Squall data split.

For users to trust model predictions, they need to understand model outputs, particularly their confidence — calibration aims to adjust (calibrate) models’ confidence to match expected accuracy. We argue that the traditional calibration evaluation does not promote effective calibrations: for example, it can encourage always assigning a mediocre confidence score to all predictions, which does not help users distinguish correct predictions from wrong ones. Building on those observations, we propose a new calibration metric, MacroCE, that better captures whether the model assigns low confidence to wrong predictions and high confidence to correct predictions. Focusing on the practical application of open-domain question answering, we examine conventional calibration methods applied on the widely-used retriever-reader pipeline, all of which do not bring significant gains under our new MacroCE metric. Toward better calibration, we propose a new calibration method (ConsCal) that uses not just final model predictions but whether multiple model checkpoints make consistent predictions. Altogether, we provide an alternative view of calibration along with a new metric, re-evaluation of existing calibration methods on our metric, and proposal of a more effective calibration method.

Complex question answering often requires finding a reasoning chain that consists of multiple evidence pieces. Current approaches incorporate the strengths of structured knowledge and unstructured text, assuming text corpora is semi-structured. Building on dense retrieval methods, we propose a new multi-step retrieval approach (BeamDR) that iteratively forms an evidence chain through beam search in dense representations. When evaluated on multi-hop question answering, BeamDR is competitive to state-of-the-art systems, without using any semi-structured information. Through query composition in dense space, BeamDR captures the implicit relationships between evidence in the reasoning chain. The code is available at https://github.com/henryzhao5852/BeamDR.

Open-domain question answering answers a question based on evidence retrieved from a large corpus. State-of-the-art neural approaches require intermediate evidence annotations for training. However, such intermediate annotations are expensive, and methods that rely on them cannot transfer to the more common setting, where only question–answer pairs are available. This paper investigates whether models can learn to find evidence from a large corpus, with only distant supervision from answer labels for model training, thereby generating no additional annotation cost. We introduce a novel approach (DistDR) that iteratively improves over a weak retriever by alternately finding evidence from the up-to-date model and encouraging the model to learn the most likely evidence. Without using any evidence labels, DistDR is on par with fully-supervised state-of-the-art methods on both multi-hop and single-hop QA benchmarks. Our analysis confirms that DistDR finds more accurate evidence over iterations, which leads to model improvements. The code is available at https://github.com/henryzhao5852/DistDR.

A flaw in QA evaluation is that annotations often only provide one gold answer. Thus, model predictions semantically equivalent to the answer but superficially different are considered incorrect. This work explores mining alias entities from knowledge bases and using them as additional gold answers (i.e., equivalent answers). We incorporate answers for two settings: evaluation with additional answers and model training with equivalent answers. We analyse three QA benchmarks: Natural Questions, TriviaQA, and SQuAD. Answer expansion increases the exact match score on all datasets for evaluation, while incorporating it helps model training over real-world datasets. We ensure the additional answers are valid through a human post hoc evaluation.

Large-scale semantic parsing datasets annotated with logical forms have enabled major advances in supervised approaches. But can richer supervision help even more? To explore the utility of fine-grained, lexical-level supervision, we introduce SQUALL, a dataset that enriches 11,276 WIKITABLEQUESTIONS English-language questions with manually created SQL equivalents plus alignments between SQL and question fragments. Our annotation enables new training possibilities for encoderdecoder models, including approaches from machine translation previously precluded by the absence of alignments. We propose and test two methods: (1) supervised attention; (2) adopting an auxiliary objective of disambiguating references in the input queries to table columns. In 5-fold cross validation, these strategies improve over strong baselines by 4.4% execution accuracy. Oracle experiments suggest that annotated alignments can support further accuracy gains of up to 23.9%.

Previous work on question-answering systems mainly focuses on answering individual questions, assuming they are independent and devoid of context. Instead, we investigate sequential question answering, asking multiple related questions. We present QBLink, a new dataset of fully human-authored questions. We extend existing strong question answering frameworks to include previous questions to improve the overall question-answering accuracy in open-domain question answering. The dataset is publicly available at http://sequential.qanta.org.

This paper proposes how to utilize a search engine in order to predict market shares. We propose to compare rates of concerns of those who search for Web pages among several companies which supply products, given a specific products domain. We measure concerns of those who search for Web pages through search engine suggests. Then, we analyze whether rates of concerns of those who search for Web pages have certain correlation with actual market share. We show that those statistics have certain correlations. We finally propose how to predict the market share of a specific product genre based on the rates of concerns of those who search for Web pages.