Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising approach for improving LLM reasoning capabilities by providing process supervision over reasoning traces. However, existing approaches for constructing PRM training data remain costly and noisy, as they typically rely on human annotation or sampling-based labeling methods that require repeated LLM calls. In this work, we propose FoVer, a framework that synthesizes PRM training data from formal reasoning tasks by annotating step-level error labels using formal verification tools such as Z3 and Isabelle. By leveraging formal verification, FoVer enables efficient and accurate PRM data construction without requiring human annotation or additional LLM calls. Using FoVer, we create PRM training data from formal logic and theorem proving tasks. Experiments on 12 reasoning benchmarks show that fine-tuning on our training data improves PRMs not only on math and logic reasoning tasks, which are informal variants of the training tasks, but also on NLI and BBH benchmarks, which differ substantially from the tasks used to construct the training data. These results demonstrate the practical effectiveness of FoVer, showing that PRM training data created using formal verification improves PRMs on informal reasoning tasks written in natural language. The datasets, models, and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/FoVer.

Fairness in multi-document summarization (MDS) measures whether a system can generate a summary fairly representing information from documents with different social attribute values. Fairness in MDS is crucial since a fair summary can offer readers a comprehensive view. Previous works focus on quantifying summary-level fairness using Proportional Representation, a fairness measure based on Statistical Parity. However, Proportional Representation does not consider redundancy in input documents and overlooks corpus-level unfairness. In this work, we propose a new summary-level fairness measure, Equal Coverage, which is based on coverage of documents with different social attribute values and considers the redundancy within documents. To detect the corpus-level unfairness, we propose a new corpus-level measure, Coverage Parity. Our human evaluations show that our measures align more with our definition of fairness. Using our measures, we evaluate the fairness of thirteen different LLMs. We find that Claude3-sonnet is the fairest among all evaluated LLMs. We also find that almost all LLMs overrepresent different social attribute values. The code is available at https://github.com/leehaoyuan/coverage_fairness

People get informed of a daily task plan through diverse media involving both texts and images. However, most prior research only focuses on LLM’s capability of textual plan generation. The potential of large-scale models in providing text-image plans remains understudied. Generating high-quality text-image plans faces two main challenges: ensuring consistent alignment between two modalities and keeping coherence among visual steps. To address these challenges, we propose a novel framework that generates and refines text-image plans step-by-step. At each iteration, our framework (1) drafts the next textual step based on the prediction history; (2) edits the last visual step to obtain the next one; (3) extracts PDDL-like visual information; and (4) refines the draft with the extracted visual information. The textual and visual step produced in stage (4) and (2) will then serve as inputs for the next iteration. Our approach offers a plug-and-play improvement to various backbone models, such as Mistral-7B, Gemini-1.5, and GPT-4o. To evaluate the effectiveness of our approach, we collect a new benchmark consisting of 1,100 tasks and their text-image pair solutions covering 11 daily topics. We also design and validate a new set of metrics to evaluate the multimodal consistency and coherence in text-image plans. Extensive experiment results show the effectiveness of our approach on a range of backbone models against competitive baselines.

Fairness in multi-document summarization (MDS) is crucial for providing comprehensive views across documents with diverse social attribute values, which can significantly impact decision-making. For example, a summarization system that tends to overrepresent negative reviews of products can mislead customers into disregarding good products. Previous works measure fairness in MDS at two levels: summary-level and corpus-level. While summary-level fairness focuses on individual summaries, corpus-level fairness focuses on a corpus of summaries. Recent methods primarily focus on summary-level fairness. We propose FairPO, a preference tuning method that focuses on both summary-level and corpus-level fairness in MDS. To improve summary-level fairness, we propose to generate preference pairs by perturbing document sets. To improve corpus-level fairness, we propose fairness-aware preference tuning by dynamically adjusting the weights of preference pairs. Our experiments show that FairPO outperforms strong baselines while maintaining the critical qualities of summaries. The code is available at https://github.com/leehaoyuan/coverage_fairness

The rapid evolution of scientific fields introduces challenges in organizing and retrieving scientific literature. While expert-curated taxonomies have traditionally addressed this need, the process is time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, recent automatic taxonomy construction methods either (1) over-rely on a specific corpus, sacrificing generalizability, or (2) depend heavily on the general knowledge of large language models (LLMs) contained within their pre-training datasets, often overlooking the dynamic nature of evolving scientific domains. Additionally, these approaches fail to account for the multi-faceted nature of scientific literature, where a single research paper may contribute to multiple dimensions (e.g., methodology, new tasks, evaluation metrics, benchmarks). To address these gaps, we propose TaxoAdapt, a framework that dynamically adapts an LLM-generated taxonomy to a given corpus across multiple dimensions. TaxoAdapt performs iterative hierarchical classification, expanding both the taxonomy width and depth based on corpus’ topical distribution. We demonstrate its state-of-the-art performance across a diverse set of computer science conferences over the years to showcase its ability to structure and capture the evolution of scientific fields. As a multidimensional method, TaxoAdapt generates taxonomies that are 26.51% more granularity-preserving and 50.41% more coherent than the most competitive baselines judged by LLMs.

LLMs have gained immense popularity among researchers and the general public for its impressive capabilities on a variety of tasks. Notably, the efficacy of LLMs remains significantly dependent on the quality and structure of the input prompts, making prompt design a critical factor for their performance. Recent advancements in automated prompt optimization have introduced diverse techniques that automatically enhance prompts to better align model outputs with user expectations. However, these methods often suffer from the lack of standardization and compatibility across different techniques, limited flexibility in customization, inconsistent performance across model scales, and they often exclusively rely on expensive proprietary LLM APIs. To fill in this gap, we introduce GreaterPrompt, a novel framework that democratizes prompt optimization by unifying diverse methods under a unified, customizable API while delivering highly effective prompts for different tasks. Our framework flexibly accommodates various model scales by leveraging both text feedback-based optimization for larger LLMs and internal gradient-based optimization for smaller models to achieve powerful and precise prompt improvements. Moreover, we provide a user-friendly Web UI that ensures accessibility for non-expert users, enabling broader adoption and enhanced performance across various user groups and application scenarios. GreaterPrompt is available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/GreaterPrompt via GitHub, PyPI, and web user interfaces.

Claim: This work is not advocating the use of LLMs for paper (meta-)reviewing. Instead, wepresent a comparative analysis to identify and distinguish LLM activities from human activities. Two research goals: i) Enable better recognition of instances when someone implicitly uses LLMs for reviewing activities; ii) Increase community awareness that LLMs, and AI in general, are currently inadequate for performing tasks that require a high level of expertise and nuanced judgment.This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload?This study focuses on the topic of LLMs as NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLMs in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with “deficiency” labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) “LLMs as Reviewers”, how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) “LLMs as Metareviewers”, how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. However, existing benchmarks are inadequate in measuring the complex logical reasoning capabilities of a model. We present FOLIO, a human-annotated, logically complex and diverse dataset for reasoning in natural language (NL), equipped with first-order logic (FOL) annotations. FOLIO consists of 1,430 examples (unique conclusions), each paired with one of 487 sets of premises used to deductively reason for the validity of each conclusion. The logical correctness of the premises and conclusions is ensured by their FOL annotations, which are automatically verified by an FOL inference engine. In addition to the main NL reasoning task, NL-FOL pairs in FOLIO constitute a new NL-FOL translation dataset. Our experiments on FOLIO systematically evaluate the FOL reasoning ability of supervised fine-tuning on medium-sized language models. For both NL reasoning and NL-FOL translation, we benchmark multiple state-of-the-art language models. Our results show that a subset of FOLIO remains a challenge for one of the most capable Large Language Model (LLM) publicly available, GPT-4.

Mathematical reasoning serves as a cornerstone for assessing the fundamental cognitive capabilities of human intelligence. In recent times, there has been a notable surge in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) geared towards the automated resolution of mathematical problems. However, the landscape of mathematical problem types is vast and varied, with LLM-oriented techniques undergoing evaluation across diverse datasets and settings. This diversity makes it challenging to discern the true advancements and obstacles within this burgeoning field. This survey endeavors to address four pivotal dimensions: i) a comprehensive exploration of the various mathematical problems and their corresponding datasets that have been investigated; ii) an examination of the spectrum of LLM-oriented techniques that have been proposed for mathematical problem-solving; iii) an overview of factors and concerns affecting LLMs in solving math; and iv) an elucidation of the persisting challenges within this domain. To the best of our knowledge, this survey stands as one of the first extensive examinations of the landscape of LLMs in the realm of mathematics, providing a holistic perspective on the current state, accomplishments, and future challenges in this rapidly evolving field.

Numerical reasoning over hybrid data containing both textual and tabular content (e.g., financial reports) has recently attracted much attention in the NLP community. However, existing question answering (QA) benchmarks over hybrid data only include a single flat table in each document and thus lack examples of multi-step numerical reasoning across multiple hierarchical tables. To facilitate data analytical progress, we construct a new large-scale benchmark, MultiHiertt, with QA pairs over Multi Hierarchical Tabular and Textual data. MultiHiertt is built from a wealth of financial reports and has the following unique characteristics: 1) each document contain multiple tables and longer unstructured texts; 2) most of tables contained are hierarchical; 3) the reasoning process required for each question is more complex and challenging than existing benchmarks; and 4) fine-grained annotations of reasoning processes and supporting facts are provided to reveal complex numerical reasoning. We further introduce a novel QA model termed MT2Net, which first applies facts retrieving to extract relevant supporting facts from both tables and text and then uses a reasoning module to perform symbolic reasoning over retrieved facts. We conduct comprehensive experiments on various baselines. The experimental results show that MultiHiertt presents a strong challenge for existing baselines whose results lag far behind the performance of human experts. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/MultiHiertt.