Synthetic Benchmark Generation

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across various tasks, prompting researchers to develop diverse evaluation benchmarks. However, most benchmarks typically measure the ability of LLMs to respond to individual questions, neglecting the complex interactions in real-world applications. We introduce Compound Question Synthesis (CQ-Syn) to build Compound-QA, a benchmark targeting questions composed of multiple interrelated sub-questions. This benchmark is derived from existing QA datasets, annotated with proprietary LLMs, and verified by humans for accuracy. It encompasses five categories: Factual-Statement, Cause-and-Effect, Hypothetical-Analysis, Comparison-and-Selection, and Evaluation-and-Suggestion. It evaluates the LLM capability in terms of three dimensions, including understanding, reasoning, and knowledge. Evaluating nine open-source LLMs on Compound-QA reveals that their performance on compound questions is notably lower than on non-compound questions. We further explore strategies to enhance LLMs' handling of compound questions, and our results show that these methods substantially improve models' comprehension and reasoning abilities.

Efficiently determining the satisfiability of a boolean equation -- known as the SAT problem for brevity -- is crucial in various industrial problems. Recently, the advent of deep learning methods has introduced significant potential for enhancing SAT solving. However, a major barrier to the advancement of this field has been the scarcity of large, realistic datasets. The majority of current public datasets are either randomly generated or extremely limited, containing only a few examples from unrelated problem families. These datasets are inadequate for meaningful training of deep learning methods. In light of this, researchers have started exploring generative techniques to create data that more accurately reflect SAT problems encountered in practical situations. These methods have so far suffered from either the inability to produce challenging SAT problems or time-scalability obstacles. In this paper we address both by identifying and manipulating the key contributors to a problem's ``hardness'', known as cores. Although some previous work has addressed cores, the time costs are unacceptably high due to the expense of traditional heuristic core detection techniques. We introduce a fast core detection procedure that uses a graph neural network. Our empirical results demonstrate that we can efficiently generate problems that remain hard to solve and retain key attributes of the original example problems. We show via experiment that the generated synthetic SAT problems can be used in a data augmentation setting to provide improved prediction of solver runtimes.

Existing evaluations of tabular synthesis models rely primarily on low-order statistics and downstream task performance, leaving multivariate causal relationships that go beyond pairwise correlations largely unmeasured. We argue that a systematic evaluation on high-order structural information is a crucial first step in addressing this issue in tabular data synthesis. In this paper, we present high-order structural causal information as a natural form of prior knowledge and introduce a benchmark framework to evaluate tabular synthesis models. This framework allows us to generate benchmark datasets through a flexible range of data generation processes, allowing for the training of tabular synthesis models using these datasets for further evaluation. We propose multiple benchmark tasks, high-order metrics, and causal inference tasks as downstream tasks for evaluating the quality of synthetic data generated by the trained models. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the benchmark framework in evaluating the model's ability to capture high-order structural causal information. Furthermore, our benchmarking results provide an initial assessment of state-of-the-art tabular synthesis models. These results reveal significant gaps between ideal and actual performance and highlight how baseline methods differ. We position the framework as a controlled diagnostic benchmark for causal fidelity, complementing existing low-order and downstream evaluations. We open source the benchmark framework, including both code and data along with documentation, to support further research in this area.