Reverse Bilingual Language Understanding (RBLU): A benchmark to evaluate the reverse inference ability of large language models
Input the question to get the answer, and then input the answer to get the question. Finally, calculate the similarity of the input question and the output question
Explore the doc »
View Demo
·
Report Bug
·
Request Feature
accelerate= "^0.34.2"datasets= "^3.0.0"evaluate= "^0.4.3"matplotlib= "^3.9.2"pandas= "^2.2.2"python= "^3.12"rouge-chinese= "^1.0.3"rouge-score= "^0.1.2"transformers= "^4.44.2"sentence-transformers= "^3.1.0"jieba= "^0.42.1"wandb= "^0.18.0"tiktoken= "^0.7.0"pyecharts= "^2.0.6"seaborn= "^0.13.2"plotly= "^5.24.1"
- install poetry
- Clone the repo
- Installing dependencies with poetry
poetry installeg:
RBLU
├── LICENSE.txt
├── README.md
├── /figure/
├── /src/
│ ├── /chart/
│ ├── /data/
│ ├── /result/
│ ├── /score/
│ ├── /rblu/
│ │ ├── config.yaml
│ │ └── main.py
│ │ └── dataload.py
│ │ └── evaluation.py
│ │ └── metric.py
│ │ └── process.py
│ │ └── path.py
│ │ └── proxy.py
└── /tests/
You can find the result for our paper in result, score, chart. You can re-run the project by the following command:
poetry run evalOr re-draw the chart by:
poetry run draw --suffix pngWe tested three open source models, LLAMA3.1-8BInstruct, GLM4-9B-Chat, and Qwen2-7B-Instruct on the RBLU benchmark with ROUGE and BERT-Score, the results are as follows:
| Language | Domain | Model Name | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | RougeL | RougeLsum | BERT score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| English | Financial | GLM4 | 0.1322 | 0.0251 | 0.0929 | 0.1047 | 0.5161 |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.1200 | 0.0212 | 0.0817 | 0.0970 | 0.4632 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.1260 | 0.0217 | 0.0878 | 0.1005 | 0.5181 | ||
| Legal | GLM4 | 0.1409 | 0.0320 | 0.0930 | 0.1052 | 0.5194 | |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.1271 | 0.0258 | 0.0827 | 0.0978 | 0.4686 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.1255 | 0.0203 | 0.0814 | 0.0964 | 0.4792 | ||
| Medical | GLM4 | 0.2115 | 0.0718 | 0.1588 | 0.1600 | 0.5799 | |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.1865 | 0.0652 | 0.1428 | 0.1452 | 0.5512 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.1962 | 0.0740 | 0.1509 | 0.1509 | 0.5600 | ||
| Chinese | Financial | GLM4 | 0.2131 | 0.0604 | 0.2120 | 0.2121 | 0.7878 |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.1566 | 0.0482 | 0.1555 | 0.1551 | 0.7386 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.1210 | 0.0295 | 0.1218 | 0.1215 | 0.7398 | ||
| Legal | GLM4 | 0.0587 | 0.0108 | 0.0587 | 0.0584 | 0.7090 | |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.0355 | 0.0109 | 0.0349 | 0.0364 | 0.6527 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.0605 | 0.0088 | 0.0612 | 0.0615 | 0.6957 | ||
| Medical | GLM4 | 0.0893 | 0.0214 | 0.0880 | 0.0890 | 0.5723 | |
| LLAMA3.1 | 0.0540 | 0.0111 | 0.0552 | 0.0542 | 0.5390 | ||
| Qwen2 | 0.0843 | 0.0195 | 0.0841 | 0.0843 | 0.6198 |
The right side indicates 3 domains, and the top side indicates 2 score types and 2 languages. "Cosine" represents "BERT-Score", the cosine similarity of vectorized answer texts, while "Rouge1" is the corresponding Rouge-1 score. The datasets are in English and Chinese. In the legend, "Original" indicates Score_Original, and "Previous" indicates Score_Previous. The x-axis of each subplot shows the number of rounds (1–4), and the y-axis shows similarity scores (0.0–1.0).
Questions Answers
-
GLM4 Performance: GLM4 demonstrates the strongest reverse inference performance among the models tested.
-
Semantic vs. Syntactic: LLMs generally capture semantic meaning more effectively than syntactic structure.
-
Cognitive Inertia: LLMs exhibit cognitive inertia, as they tend to generate increasingly similar questions over multiple rounds.
-
Forward vs. Reverse Inference: LLMs show stronger forward inference capabilities than reverse inference.
-
Language Differences:
- Chinese: Due to the flexibility of expressions and varied word choices in Chinese, the outputs display greater semantic flexibility.
- English: English outputs maintain higher syntactic consistency due to the stricter syntactic rules in the language.
This project is licensed under the MIT License. For more details, please refer to LICENSE.txt


