Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) has become the default approach to fine-tune large language models (LLMs) due to its significant reduction in trainable parameters. However, trainable parameter demand for LoRA increases with increasing model embedding dimensions, leading to high compute costs. Additionally, its backward updates require storing high-dimensional intermediate activations and optimizer states, demanding high peak GPU memory. In this paper, we introduce _LaMDA_, a novel approach to fine-tuning large language models, which leverages low-dimensional adaptation to achieve significant reductions in trainable parameters and peak GPU memory footprint. LaMDA freezes a first projection matrix (PMA) in the adaptation path while introducing a low-dimensional trainable square matrix, resulting in substantial reductions in trainable parameters and peak GPU memory usage. LaMDA gradually freezes a second projection matrix (PMB) during the early fine-tuning stages, reducing the compute cost associated with weight updates to enhance parameter efficiency further.We also present an enhancement, LaMDA++, incorporating a “lite-weight” adaptive rank allocation for the LoRA path via normalized spectrum analysis of pre-trained model weights. We evaluate LaMDA/LaMDA++ across various tasks, including natural language understanding with the GLUE benchmark, text summarization, natural language generation, and complex reasoning on different LLMs.Results show that LaMDA matches or surpasses the performance of existing alternatives while requiring up to **17.7\times** fewer parameter updates and up to **1.32\times** lower peak GPU memory usage during fine-tuning. Code will be publicly available at https://github.com/ArminAzizi98/LaMDA.
论文检索
输入标题、作者或关键词，从 2,271 篇学术成果中精准定位
Detecting and answering ambiguous questions has been a challenging task in open-domain question answering. Ambiguous questions have different answers depending on their interpretation and can take diverse forms. Temporally ambiguous questions are one of the most common types of such questions. In this paper, we introduce TEMPAMBIQA, a manually annotated temporally ambiguous QA dataset consisting of 8,162 open-domain questions derived from existing datasets. Our annotations focus on capturing temporal ambiguity to study the task of detecting temporally ambiguous questions. We propose a novel approach by using diverse search strategies based on disambiguate versions of the questions. We also introduce and test non-search, competitive baselines for detecting temporal ambiguity using zero-shot and few-shot approaches.
Tool learning aims to enhance and expand large language models’ (LLMs) capabilities with external tools, which has gained significant attention recently. Current methods have shown that LLMs can effectively handle a certain amount of tools through in-context learning or fine-tuning. However, in real-world scenarios, the number of tools is typically extensive and irregularly updated, emphasizing the necessity for a dedicated tool retrieval component. Tool retrieval is nontrivial due to the following challenges: 1) complex user instructions and tool descriptions; 2) misalignment between tool retrieval and tool usage models. To address the above issues, we propose to enhance tool retrieval with iterative feedback from the large language model. Specifically, we prompt the tool usage model, i.e., the LLM, to provide feedback for the tool retriever model in multi-round, which could progressively improve the tool retriever’s understanding of instructions and tools and reduce the gap between the two standalone components. We build a unified and comprehensive benchmark to evaluate tool retrieval models. The extensive experiments indicate that our proposed approach achieves advanced performance in both in-domain evaluation and out-of-domain evaluation.
Open Information Extraction (OpenIE) represents a crucial NLP task aimed at deriving structured information from unstructured text, unrestricted by relation type or domain. This survey paper provides an overview of OpenIE technologies spanning from 2007 to 2024, emphasizing a chronological perspective absent in prior surveys. It examines the evolution of task settings in OpenIE to align with the advances in recent technologies. The paper categorizes OpenIE approaches into rule-based, neural, and pre-trained large language models, discussing each within a chronological framework. Additionally, it highlights prevalent datasets and evaluation metrics currently in use. Building on this extensive review, this paper systematically reviews the evolution of task settings, data, evaluation metrics, and methodologies in the era of large language models, highlighting their mutual influence, comparing their capabilities, and examining their implications for open challenges and future research directions.
This paper proposes a novel approach to evaluate Counter Narrative (CN) generation using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an evaluator. We show that traditional automatic metrics correlate poorly with human judgements and fail to capture the nuanced relationship between generated CNs and human perception. To alleviate this, we introduce a model ranking pipeline based on pairwise comparisons of generated CNs from different models, organized in a tournament-style format. The proposed evaluation method achieves a high correlation with human preference, with a ρ score of 0.88. As an additional contribution, we leverage LLMs as zero-shot CN generators and provide a comparative analysis of chat, instruct, and base models, exploring their respective strengths and limitations. Through meticulous evaluation, including fine-tuning experiments, we elucidate the differences in performance and responsiveness to domain-specific data. We conclude that chat-aligned models in zero-shot are the best option for carrying out the task, provided they do not refuse to generate an answer due to security concerns.
Recent neural news recommenders (NNRs) extend content-based recommendation (1) by aligning additional aspects (e.g., topic, sentiment) between candidate news and user history or (2) by diversifying recommendations w.r.t. these aspects. This customization is achieved by ”hardcoding” additional constraints into the NNR’s architecture and/or training objectives: any change in the desired recommendation behavior thus requires retraining the model with a modified objective. This impedes widespread adoption of multi-aspect news recommenders. In this work, we introduce MANNeR, a modular framework for multi-aspect neural news recommendation that supports on-the-fly customization over individual aspects at inference time. With metric-based learning as its backbone, MANNeR learns aspect-specialized news encoders and then flexibly and linearly combines the resulting aspect-specific similarity scores into different ranking functions, alleviating the need for ranking function-specific retraining of the model. Extensive experimental results show that MANNeR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art NNRs on both standard content-based recommendation and single- and multi-aspect customization. Lastly, we validate that MANNeR’s aspect-customization module is robust to language and domain transfer.
The statement “The earth is flat” is factually inaccurate, but if someone truly believes and argues in its favor, it is not deceptive. Research on deception detection and fact checking often conflates factual accuracy with the truthfulness of statements. This assumption makes it difficult to (a) study subtle distinctions and interactions between the two and (b) gauge their effects on downstream tasks. The belief-based deception framework disentangles these properties by defining texts as deceptive when there is a mismatch between what people say and what they truly believe. In this study, we assess if presumed patterns of deception generalize to German language texts. We test the effectiveness of computational models in detecting deception using an established corpus of belief-based argumentation. Finally, we gauge the impact of deception on the downstream task of fact checking and explore if this property confounds verification models. Surprisingly, our analysis finds no correlation with established cues of deception. Previous work claimed that computational models can outperform humans in deception detection accuracy, however, our experiments show that both traditional and state-of-the-art models struggle with the task, performing no better than random guessing. For fact checking, we find that natural language inference-based verification performs worse on non-factual and deceptive content, while prompting large language models for the same task is less sensitive to these properties.
In this paper, we introduce Attributive Masking Learning (AML), a method designed for explaining language model predictions by learning input masks. AML trains an attribution model to identify influential tokens in the input for a given language model’s prediction. The central concept of AML is to train an auxiliary attribution model to simultaneously 1) mask as much input data as possible while ensuring that the language model’s prediction closely aligns with its prediction on the original input, and 2) ensure a significant change in the model’s prediction when applying the inverse (complement) of the same mask to the input. This dual-masking approach further enables the optimization of the explanation w.r.t. the metric of interest. We demonstrate the effectiveness of AML on both encoder-based and decoder-based language models, showcasing its superiority over a variety of state-of-the-art explanation methods on multiple benchmarks.
Taking a turn for the better: Conversation redirection throughout the course of mental-health therapy
PDF ↗Mental-health therapy involves a complex conversation flow in which patients and therapists continuously negotiate what should be talked about next. For example, therapists might try to shift the conversation’s direction to keep the therapeutic process on track and avoid stagnation, or patients might push the discussion towards issues they want to focus on.How do such patient and therapist redirections relate to the development and quality of their relationship? To answer this question, we introduce a probabilistic measure of the extent to which a certain utterance immediately redirects the flow of the conversation, accounting for both the intention and the actual realization of such a change. We apply this new measure to characterize the development of patient- therapist relationships over multiple sessions in a very large, widely-used online therapy platform. Our analysis reveals that (1) patient control of the conversation’s direction generally increases relative to that of the therapist as their relationship progresses; and (2) patients who have less control in the first few sessions are significantly more likely to eventually express dissatisfaction with their therapist and terminate the relationship.
There has been a growing body of work focusing on the in-context learning (ICL) abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, it is an open question how effective ICL can be. This paper presents Tutor-ICL, a simple prompting method for classification tasks inspired by how effective instructors might engage their students in learning a task. Specifically, we propose presenting exemplar answers in a *comparative format* rather than the traditional single-answer format. We also show that including the test instance before the exemplars can improve performance, making it easier for LLMs to focus on relevant exemplars. Lastly, we include a summarization step before attempting the test, following a common human practice. Experiments on various classification tasks, conducted across both decoder-only LLMs (Llama 2, 3) and encoder-decoder LLMs (Flan-T5-XL, XXL), show that Tutor-ICL consistently boosts performance, achieving up to a 13.76% increase in accuracy.
Instruct, Not Assist: LLM-based Multi-Turn Planning and Hierarchical Questioning for Socratic Code Debugging
PDF ↗Socratic questioning is an effective teaching strategy, encouraging critical thinking and problem-solving. The conversational capabilities of large language models (LLMs) show great potential for providing scalable, real-time student guidance. However, current LLMs often give away solutions directly, making them ineffective instructors. We tackle this issue in the code debugging domain with TreeInstruct, an Instructor agent guided by a novel state space-based planning algorithm. TreeInstruct asks probing questions to help students independently identify and resolve errors. It estimates a student’s conceptual and syntactical knowledge to dynamically construct a question tree based on their responses and current knowledge state, effectively addressing both independent and dependent mistakes concurrently in a multi-turn interaction setting. In addition to using an existing single-bug debugging benchmark, we construct a more challenging multi-bug dataset of 150 coding problems, incorrect solutions, and bug fixes– all carefully constructed and annotated by experts. Extensive evaluation shows TreeInstruct’s state-of-the-art performance on both datasets, proving it to be a more effective instructor than baselines. Furthermore, a real-world case study with five students of varying skill levels further demonstrates TreeInstruct’s ability to guide students to debug their code efficiently with minimal turns and highly Socratic questioning.
Existing metrics for evaluating the factuality of long-form text, such as FACTSCORE (Min et al., 2023) and SAFE (Wei et al., 2024), decompose an input text into “atomic claims” and verify each against a knowledge base like Wikipedia. These metrics are not suitable for most generation tasks because they assume that every claim is verifiable (i.e., can plausibly be proven true or false). We address this issue with VERISCORE,1 a metric for evaluating factuality in diverse long-form generation tasks that contain both verifiable and unverifiable content. VERISCORE can be effectively implemented with either closed or fine-tuned open-weight language models. Human evaluation confirms that VERISCORE’s extracted claims are more sensible than those from competing methods across eight different long-form tasks. We use VERISCORE to evaluate generations from 16 different models across multiple long-form tasks and find that while GPT-4o is the best-performing model overall, open-weight models such as Mixtral-8×22 are closing the gap. We show that an LM’s VERISCORE on one task (e.g., biography generation) does not necessarily correlate to its VERISCORE on a different task (e.g., long-form QA), highlighting the need for expanding factuality evaluation across tasks with varying fact density.
We present Randomized Path-Integration (RPI) - a path-integration method for explaining language models via randomization of the integration path over the attention information in the model. RPI employs integration on internal attention scores and their gradients along a randomized path, which is dynamically established between a baseline representation and the attention scores of the model. The inherent randomness in the integration path originates from modeling the baseline representation as a randomly drawn tensor from a Gaussian diffusion process. As a consequence, RPI generates diverse baselines, yielding a set of candidate attribution maps. This set facilitates the selection of the most effective attribution map based on the specific metric at hand. We present an extensive evaluation, encompassing 11 explanation methods and 5 language models, including the Llama2 and Mistral models. Our results demonstrate that RPI outperforms latest state-of-the-art methods across 4 datasets and 5 evaluation metrics.
Editing the Mind of Giants: An In-Depth Exploration of Pitfalls of Knowledge Editing in Large Language Models
PDF ↗Knowledge editing is a rising technique for efficiently updating factual knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with minimal alteration of parameters. However, recent studies have identified side effects, such as knowledge distortion and the deterioration of general abilities, that have emerged after editing. Despite these findings, evaluating the pitfalls of knowledge editing often relies on inconsistent metrics and benchmarks, lacking a uniform standard. In response, this survey presents a comprehensive study of these side effects, providing a unified perspective on the challenges of knowledge editing in LLMs by conducting experiments with consistent metrics and benchmarks. Additionally, we review related works and outline potential research directions to address these limitations. Our survey highlights the limitations of current knowledge editing methods, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the inner knowledge structures of LLMs and improved knowledge editing methods. To foster future research, we have released the complementary materials publicly (https://github.com/MiuLab/EditLLM-Survey).
AgentsCourt: Building Judicial Decision-Making Agents with Court Debate Simulation and Legal Knowledge Augmentation
PDF ↗With the development of deep learning, natural language processing technology has effectively improved the efficiency of various aspects of the traditional judicial industry. However, most current efforts focus on tasks within individual judicial stages, making it difficult to handle complex tasks that span multiple stages. As the autonomous agents powered by large language models are becoming increasingly smart and able to make complex decisions in real-world settings, offering new insights for judicial intelligence. In this paper, (1) we propose a novel multi-agent framework, AgentsCourt, for judicial decision-making. Our framework follows the classic court trial process, consisting of court debate simulation, legal resources retrieval and decision-making refinement to simulate the decision-making of judge. (2) we introduce SimuCourt, a judicial benchmark that encompasses 420 Chinese judgment documents, spanning the three most common types of judicial cases. Furthermore, to support this task, we construct a large-scale legal knowledge base, Legal-KB, with multi-resource legal knowledge. (3) Extensive experiments show that our framework outperforms the existing advanced methods in various aspects, especially in generating legal articles, where our model achieves significant improvements of 8.6% and 9.1% F1 score in the first and second instance settings, respectively.
Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but current answer correctness (AC) metrics struggle with verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLMs). There are two challenges with current short-form QA evaluations: a lack of diverse styles of evaluation data and an over-reliance on expensive and slow LLMs. LLM-based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods (BERTScore).
Sentiment analysis (SA) aims to identify the sentiment expressed in a piece of text, often in the form of a review. Assuming a review and the sentiment associated with it, in this paper we formulate SA as a combination of two tasks: (1) a causal discovery task that distinguishes whether a review “primes” the sentiment (Causal Hypothesis C1), or the sentiment “primes” the review (Causal Hypothesis C2); and (2) the traditional prediction task to model the sentiment using the review as input. Using the peak-end rule in psychology, we classify a sample as C1 if its overall sentiment score approximates an average of all the sentence-level sentiments in the review, and as C2 if the overall sentiment score approximates an average of the peak and end sentiments. For the prediction task, we use the discovered causal mechanisms behind the samples to improve the performance of LLMs by proposing causal prompts that give the models an inductive bias of the underlying causal graph, leading to substantial improvements by up to 32.13 F1 points on zero-shot five-class SA.
Automatic Question Answering (QA) systems rely on contextual information to provide accurate answers. Commonly, contexts are prepared through either retrieval-based or generation-based methods. The former involves retrieving relevant documents from a corpus like Wikipedia, whereas the latter uses generative models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate the context. In this paper, we introduce a novel context preparation approach called HINTQA, which employs Automatic Hint Generation (HG) techniques. Unlike traditional methods, HINTQA prompts LLMs to produce hints about potential answers for the question rather than generating relevant context. We evaluate our approach across three QA datasets including TriviaQA, Natural Questions, and Web Questions, examining how the number and order of hints impact performance. Our findings show that the HINTQA surpasses both retrieval-based and generation-based approaches. We demonstrate that hints enhance the accuracy of answers more than retrieved and generated contexts.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, they are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. However, LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. Given that LLMs are being used to gain insights into various societal aspects, it is essential to mitigate these biases. To that end, our study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases. We begin by creating a dataset of scenarios where implicit gender biases might arise, and subsequently develop a metric to assess the presence of biases. Our empirical analysis reveals that LLMs generate outputs characterized by strong implicit bias associations (\geq \approx 50\% of the time). Furthermore, these biases tend to escalate following multi-agent interactions. To mitigate them, we propose two strategies: self-reflection with in-context examples (ICE); and supervised fine-tuning. Our research demonstrates that both methods effectively mitigate implicit biases, with the ensemble of fine-tuning and self-reflection proving to be the most successful.
As a type of figurative language, an East Asian idiom condenses rich cultural background into only a few characters. Translating such idioms is challenging for human translators, who often resort to choosing a context-aware translation from an existing list of candidates. However, compiling a dictionary of candidate translations demands much time and creativity even for expert translators. To alleviate such burden, we evaluate if GPT-4 can help generate high-quality translations. Based on automatic evaluations of faithfulness and creativity, we first identify Pareto-optimal prompting strategies that can outperform translation engines from Google and DeepL. Then, at a low cost, our context-aware translations can achieve far more high-quality translations per idiom than the human baseline. We open-source all code and data to facilitate further research.