Daily Papers

Revising scientific papers based on peer feedback is a challenging task that requires not only deep scientific knowledge and reasoning, but also the ability to recognize the implicit requests in high-level feedback and to choose the best of many possible ways to update the manuscript in response. We introduce this task for large language models and release ARIES, a dataset of review comments and their corresponding paper edits, to enable training and evaluating models. We study two versions of the task: comment-edit alignment and edit generation, and evaluate several baselines, including GPT-4. We find that models struggle even to identify the edits that correspond to a comment, especially in cases where the comment is phrased in an indirect way or where the edit addresses the spirit of a comment but not the precise request. When tasked with generating edits, GPT-4 often succeeds in addressing comments on a surface level, but it rigidly follows the wording of the feedback rather than the underlying intent, and includes fewer technical details than human-written edits. We hope that our formalization, dataset, and analysis will form a foundation for future work in this area.

Recent advancements in deep learning models for time series forecasting have been significant. These models often leverage fundamental time series properties such as seasonality and non-stationarity, which may suggest an intrinsic link between model performance and data properties. However, existing benchmark datasets fail to offer diverse and well-defined temporal patterns, restricting the systematic evaluation of such connections. Additionally, there is no effective model recommendation approach, leading to high time and cost expenditures when testing different architectures across different downstream applications. For those reasons, we propose ARIES, a framework for assessing relation between time series properties and modeling strategies, and for recommending deep forcasting models for realistic time series. First, we construct a synthetic dataset with multiple distinct patterns, and design a comprehensive system to compute the properties of time series. Next, we conduct an extensive benchmarking of over 50 forecasting models, and establish the relationship between time series properties and modeling strategies. Our experimental results reveal a clear correlation. Based on these findings, we propose the first deep forecasting model recommender, capable of providing interpretable suggestions for real-world time series. In summary, ARIES is the first study to establish the relations between the properties of time series data and modeling strategies, while also implementing a model recommendation system. The code is available at: https://github.com/blisky-li/ARIES.

Recent research has shown that LLM performance on reasoning tasks can be enhanced by scaling test-time compute. One promising approach, particularly with decomposable problems, involves arranging intermediate solutions as a graph on which transformations are performed to explore the solution space. However, prior works rely on pre-determined, task-specific transformation schedules which are subject to a set of searched hyperparameters. In this work, we view thought graph transformations as actions in a Markov decision process, and implement policy agents to drive effective action policies for the underlying reasoning LLM agent. In particular, we investigate the ability for another LLM to act as a policy agent on thought graph environments and introduce ARIES, a multi-agent architecture for reasoning with LLMs. In ARIES, reasoning LLM agents solve decomposed subproblems, while policy LLM agents maintain visibility of the thought graph states, and dynamically adapt the problem-solving strategy. Through extensive experiments, we observe that using off-the-shelf LLMs as policy agents with no supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can yield up to 29% higher accuracy on HumanEval relative to static transformation schedules, as well as reducing inference costs by 35% and avoid any search requirements. We also conduct a thorough analysis of observed failure modes, highlighting that limitations on LLM sizes and the depth of problem decomposition can be seen as challenges to scaling LLM-guided reasoning.