Extensive research has been conducted to explore the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for table reasoning and has significantly improved the performance on existing benchmarks. However, tables and user questions in real-world applications are more complex and diverse, presenting an unignorable gap compared to the existing benchmarks. To fill the gap, we propose a Multi-scale spreadsheet benchmark with Meta operations for Table reasoning, named as MiMoTable. Specifically, MiMoTable incorporates two key features. First, the tables in MiMoTable are all spreadsheets used in real-world scenarios, which cover seven domains and contain different types. Second, we define a new criterion with six categories of meta operations for measuring the difficulty of each question in MiMoTable, simultaneously as a new perspective for measuring the difficulty of the existing benchmarks. Experimental results show that Claude-3.5-Sonnet achieves the best performance with 77.4% accuracy, indicating that there is still significant room to improve for LLMs on MiMoTable. Furthermore, we grade the difficulty of existing benchmarks according to our new criteria. Experiments have shown that the performance of LLMs decreases as the difficulty of benchmarks increases, thereby proving the effectiveness of our proposed new criterion.

Despite recent efforts to develop large language models with robust long-context capabilities, the lack of long-context benchmarks means that relatively little is known about their performance. To alleviate this gap, in this paper, we propose Counting-Stars, a multi-evidence, position-aware, and scalable benchmark designed to evaluate the multi-evidence retrieval capabilities of long-context LLMs. Counting-Stars comprises two counting-based multiple pieces of evidence retrieval tasks: searching and reasoning. Using Counting-Stars, we conducted experiments to evaluate several long-context LLMs, including GPT-4 Turbo, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude3 Opus, GLM-4, and Moonshot-v1. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that Gemini 1.5 Pro achieves the best overall results, while GPT-4 Turbo exhibits the most stable performance across various tasks. Furthermore, our analysis of these LLMs, which have been extended to handle long-context scenarios, indicates that significant room for improvement remains as the length of the input context and the complexity of the tasks increase.

Utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators to assess the performance of other LLMs has garnered attention. However, this evaluation approach is affected by potential biases within LLMs, raising concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results of LLMs. To address this issue, we propose and explore two many-shot In-Context Learning (ICL) prompt templates to help LLM evaluators mitigate potential biases: Many-Shot with Reference (MSwR) and Many-Shot without Reference (MSoR). Specifically, the former utilizes in-context examples with model-generated rationales as references, while the latter does not include these references. Using these prompt designs, we investigate the impact of increasing the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the evaluation results. Experimental results show that advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot regime. Furthermore, in most cases, MSwR performs significantly better than MSoR.