RESPONSE: Benchmarking the Ability of Language Models to Undertake Commonsense Reasoning in Crisis Situation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11348v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:32:40 GMT
• Title: RESPONSE: Benchmarking the Ability of Language Models to Undertake Commonsense Reasoning in Crisis Situation
• Authors: Aissatou Diallo, Antonis Bikakis, Luke Dickens, Anthony Hunter, Rob Miller,
• Abstract summary: We present textsfRESPONSE, a dataset containing 1789 annotated instances featuring 6037 sets of questions.<n>The dataset includes problem descriptions, missing resources, time-sensitive solutions, and their justifications, with a subset validated by environmental engineers.<n>Our findings show that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4 achieve only 37% human-evaluated correctness for immediate response actions.
• Score: 7.839338724237275
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: An interesting class of commonsense reasoning problems arises when people are faced with natural disasters. To investigate this topic, we present \textsf{RESPONSE}, a human-curated dataset containing 1789 annotated instances featuring 6037 sets of questions designed to assess LLMs' commonsense reasoning in disaster situations across different time frames. The dataset includes problem descriptions, missing resources, time-sensitive solutions, and their justifications, with a subset validated by environmental engineers. Through both automatic metrics and human evaluation, we compare LLM-generated recommendations against human responses. Our findings show that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4 achieve only 37\% human-evaluated correctness for immediate response actions, highlighting significant room for improvement in LLMs' ability for commonsense reasoning in crises.

Related papers

• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Judging the Judges: A Collection of LLM-Generated Relevance Judgements [37.103230004631996]
  This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024.<n>We release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T17:40:32Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Exploring Knowledge Boundaries in Large Language Models for Retrieval Judgment [56.87031484108484]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly recognized for their practical applications. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tackles this challenge and has shown a significant impact on LLMs. By minimizing retrieval requests that yield neutral or harmful results, we can effectively reduce both time and computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T15:12:28Z)
• DisasterQA: A Benchmark for Assessing the performance of LLMs in Disaster Response [0.0]
  We evaluate the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in disaster response knowledge. The benchmark covers a wide range of disaster response topics. The results indicate that LLMs require improvement on disaster response knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T00:13:06Z)
• Quriosity: Analyzing Human Questioning Behavior and Causal Inquiry through Curiosity-Driven Queries [91.70689724416698]
  We present Quriosity, a collection of 13.5K naturally occurring questions from three diverse sources.<n>Our analysis reveals a significant presence of causal questions (up to 42%) in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:55:28Z)
• Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators [121.15880285283116]
  This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of large language models (LLMs) in solving recent programming problems in Codeforces. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, theThoughtived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T18:58:57Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Stateful Offline Contextual Policy Evaluation and Learning [88.9134799076718]
  We study off-policy evaluation and learning from sequential data. We formalize the relevant causal structure of problems such as dynamic personalized pricing. We show improved out-of-sample policy performance in this class of relevant problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T16:15:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.