In the era of large language models (LLMs), LLM-based agents have shown remarkable performance in several existing benchmarks or real-world applications. Nevertheless, they still face difficulties in tackling complex tasks. Inspired by collaborative problem solving, several recent works use the strategy of multi-agent collaboration as a potential solution.
We collect the Must-read papers to catch up and share the state-of-the-art methods, facilitating the related research.
Link: more previous works can be found in:
Thanks a lot for pioneering effort.
[2023/09] Playing Repeated Games With Large Language Models[[paper](https://openreview.
[2023/09] Playing Repeated Games With Large Language Models[paper]
We gather information on commonly used datasets for reference. Please be aware that there may be slight difference in the dataset due to different versions.
| Name (link) | Task | Number | Evaluation* | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hotpot-QA | open-domain QA | train/dev/test: 88k/5.6k/5.6k | Exactly Match (EM) | paper |
| mmlu | multiple-choice questions | train/dev/test: 99.8k/285/1.531k | Multitask Accuracy | paper |
| math | reasoning | 1.25k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| ALFWorld | Embodied AI | 3.5k// | Generalization | paper |
| Natural Questions | QA | 30.7k//0.78k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| GSM8K | reasoning | 7.5k//1.062k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| HumanEval | coding | 164 handwritten programming questions | Correctness | paper |
| BigBench | coding | 214 tasks | Correctness, Fluency | paper |
| AI2 Reasoning Challenge | choice question | 3.37k/0.87k/3.55k | Correctness | paper |
| MGSM | Math | 8/0.25k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| FairEval | llm evaluation | 80 | Accuracy(Fairness) | paper |
| MBPP | coding | 0.37k/0.09k/0.5k | Accuracy | paper |
| Topical-Chat | chat | 11k | Coherence, Knowledge grounding, Contextual relevance | paper |
| WinoGrande | choice | 9.25k/1.25k/1.77k | Accuracy | paper |
| CommonsenseQA | commonsense knowledge QA | 12k | Accuracy | paper |
| FinQA | Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data | 8.28k | Accuracy | paper |
| boolq | yes/no questions | 9.23k//3.27k | Accuracy | paper |
| GSMHard | math | 1.32k// | Correctness | |
| SVAMP | math | 1k | Accuracy with emantic variations | paper |
| ConvFinQA | Numerical Reasoning in Conversational Finance | 3k/0.4k/0.4k | Correctness in neural symbolic methods and prompting-based methods | paper |
| TAT-QA | Finance QA | 16k | Correctness | paper |
| MultiArith | math | 420//180 | Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1-score | |
| common_gen | constrained text generation task | 67.4k/4.02k/1.5k | Coherent | paper |
| Toolbench | Tool Usage | 16k | API function call success rate | paper |
| RestBench | Resolve instructions | 157 | Understand and execute complex instructions | paper |
| ToolQA | Use external tools for question answering | 1.5k | Success rate in answering questions | paper |
Acknowledging all the paper authors for their excellent works. We also extend our thanks to all contributors.
For Contribution: There are cases where we miss important works in this field, please contribute to this repo! Thanks for the efforts in advance.
For any question, feel free to contact us. We also welcome any form of collaboration.
Email: shizhl@mail.sdu.edu.cn
In the era of large language models (LLMs), LLM-based agents have shown remarkable performance in several existing benchmarks or real-world applications. Nevertheless, they still face difficulties in tackling complex tasks. Inspired by collaborative problem solving, several recent works use the strategy of multi-agent collaboration as a potential solution.
We collect the Must-read papers to catch up and share the state-of-the-art methods, facilitating the related research.
Link: more previous works can be found in:
Thanks a lot for pioneering effort.
[2023/09] Playing Repeated Games With Large Language Models[[paper](https://openreview.
[2023/09] Playing Repeated Games With Large Language Models[paper]
We gather information on commonly used datasets for reference. Please be aware that there may be slight difference in the dataset due to different versions.
| Name (link) | Task | Number | Evaluation* | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hotpot-QA | open-domain QA | train/dev/test: 88k/5.6k/5.6k | Exactly Match (EM) | paper |
| mmlu | multiple-choice questions | train/dev/test: 99.8k/285/1.531k | Multitask Accuracy | paper |
| math | reasoning | 1.25k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| ALFWorld | Embodied AI | 3.5k// | Generalization | paper |
| Natural Questions | QA | 30.7k//0.78k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| GSM8K | reasoning | 7.5k//1.062k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| HumanEval | coding | 164 handwritten programming questions | Correctness | paper |
| BigBench | coding | 214 tasks | Correctness, Fluency | paper |
| AI2 Reasoning Challenge | choice question | 3.37k/0.87k/3.55k | Correctness | paper |
| MGSM | Math | 8/0.25k | Exactly Match(EM) | paper |
| FairEval | llm evaluation | 80 | Accuracy(Fairness) | paper |
| MBPP | coding | 0.37k/0.09k/0.5k | Accuracy | paper |
| Topical-Chat | chat | 11k | Coherence, Knowledge grounding, Contextual relevance | paper |
| WinoGrande | choice | 9.25k/1.25k/1.77k | Accuracy | paper |
| CommonsenseQA | commonsense knowledge QA | 12k | Accuracy | paper |
| FinQA | Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data | 8.28k | Accuracy | paper |
| boolq | yes/no questions | 9.23k//3.27k | Accuracy | paper |
| GSMHard | math | 1.32k// | Correctness | |
| SVAMP | math | 1k | Accuracy with emantic variations | paper |
| ConvFinQA | Numerical Reasoning in Conversational Finance | 3k/0.4k/0.4k | Correctness in neural symbolic methods and prompting-based methods | paper |
| TAT-QA | Finance QA | 16k | Correctness | paper |
| MultiArith | math | 420//180 | Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1-score | |
| common_gen | constrained text generation task | 67.4k/4.02k/1.5k | Coherent | paper |
| Toolbench | Tool Usage | 16k | API function call success rate | paper |
| RestBench | Resolve instructions | 157 | Understand and execute complex instructions | paper |
| ToolQA | Use external tools for question answering | 1.5k | Success rate in answering questions | paper |
Acknowledging all the paper authors for their excellent works. We also extend our thanks to all contributors.
For Contribution: There are cases where we miss important works in this field, please contribute to this repo! Thanks for the efforts in advance.
For any question, feel free to contact us. We also welcome any form of collaboration.
Email: shizhl@mail.sdu.edu.cn