Global MMLU: Understanding and Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Biases in Multilingual Evaluation

Cultural biases in multilingual datasets pose significant challenges for their effectiveness as global benchmarks. These biases stem not only from language but also from the cultural knowledge required to interpret questions, reducing the practical utility of translated datasets like MMLU. Furthermore, translation often introduces artifacts that can distort the meaning or clarity of questions in the target language. A common practice in multilingual evaluation is to rely on machine-translated evaluation sets, but simply translating a dataset is insufficient to address these challenges. In this work, we trace the impact of both of these issues on multilingual evaluations and ensuing model performances. Our large-scale evaluation of state-of-the-art open and proprietary models illustrates that progress on MMLU depends heavily on learning Western-centric concepts, with 28% of all questions requiring culturally sensitive knowledge. Moreover, for questions requiring geographic knowledge, an astounding 84.9% focus on either North American or European regions. Rankings of model evaluations change depending on whether they are evaluated on the full portion or the subset of questions annotated as culturally sensitive, showing the distortion to model rankings when blindly relying on translated MMLU. We release Global-MMLU, an improved MMLU with evaluation coverage across 42 languages -- with improved overall quality by engaging with compensated professional and community annotators to verify translation quality while also rigorously evaluating cultural biases present in the original dataset. This comprehensive Global-MMLU set also includes designated subsets labeled as culturally sensitive and culturally agnostic to allow for more holistic, complete evaluation.

INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (\ie, multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

The LLM Language Network: A Neuroscientific Approach for Identifying Causally Task-Relevant Units

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities on not just language tasks, but also various tasks that are not linguistic in nature, such as logical reasoning and social inference. In the human brain, neuroscience has identified a core language system that selectively and causally supports language processing. We here ask whether similar specialization for language emerges in LLMs. We identify language-selective units within 18 popular LLMs, using the same localization approach that is used in neuroscience. We then establish the causal role of these units by demonstrating that ablating LLM language-selective units -- but not random units -- leads to drastic deficits in language tasks. Correspondingly, language-selective LLM units are more aligned to brain recordings from the human language system than random units. Finally, we investigate whether our localization method extends to other cognitive domains: while we find specialized networks in some LLMs for reasoning and social capabilities, there are substantial differences among models. These findings provide functional and causal evidence for specialization in large language models, and highlight parallels with the functional organization in the brain.

Creativity in AI: Progresses and Challenges

Creativity is the ability to produce novel, useful, and surprising ideas, and has been widely studied as a crucial aspect of human cognition. Machine creativity on the other hand has been a long-standing challenge. With the rise of advanced generative AI, there has been renewed interest and debate regarding AI's creative capabilities. Therefore, it is imperative to revisit the state of creativity in AI and identify key progresses and remaining challenges. In this work, we survey leading works studying the creative capabilities of AI systems, focusing on creative problem-solving, linguistic, artistic, and scientific creativity. Our review suggests that while the latest AI models are largely capable of producing linguistically and artistically creative outputs such as poems, images, and musical pieces, they struggle with tasks that require creative problem-solving, abstract thinking and compositionality and their generations suffer from a lack of diversity, originality, long-range incoherence and hallucinations. We also discuss key questions concerning copyright and authorship issues with generative models. Furthermore, we highlight the need for a comprehensive evaluation of creativity that is process-driven and considers several dimensions of creativity. Finally, we propose future research directions to improve the creativity of AI outputs, drawing inspiration from cognitive science and psychology.

Evaluating Morphological Compositional Generalization in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant progress in various natural language generation and understanding tasks. However, their linguistic generalization capabilities remain questionable, raising doubts about whether these models learn language similarly to humans. While humans exhibit compositional generalization and linguistic creativity in language use, the extent to which LLMs replicate these abilities, particularly in morphology, is under-explored. In this work, we systematically investigate the morphological generalization abilities of LLMs through the lens of compositionality. We define morphemes as compositional primitives and design a novel suite of generative and discriminative tasks to assess morphological productivity and systematicity. Focusing on agglutinative languages such as Turkish and Finnish, we evaluate several state-of-the-art instruction-finetuned multilingual models, including GPT-4 and Gemini. Our analysis shows that LLMs struggle with morphological compositional generalization particularly when applied to novel word roots, with performance declining sharply as morphological complexity increases. While models can identify individual morphological combinations better than chance, their performance lacks systematicity, leading to significant accuracy gaps compared to humans.

LLMs Are In-Context Reinforcement Learners

Large Language Models (LLMs) can learn new tasks through in-context supervised learning (i.e., ICL). This work studies if this ability extends to in-context reinforcement learning (ICRL), where models are not given gold labels in context, but only their past predictions and rewards. We show that a naive application of ICRL fails miserably, and identify the root cause as a fundamental deficiency at exploration, which leads to quick model degeneration. We propose an algorithm to address this deficiency by increasing test-time compute, as well as a compute-bound approximation. We use several challenging classification tasks to empirically show that our ICRL algorithms lead to effective learning from rewards alone, and analyze the characteristics of this ability and our methods. Overall, our results reveal remarkable ICRL abilities in LLMs.

Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants

AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.

A Logical Fallacy-Informed Framework for Argument Generation

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. An important factor contributing to LLMs' suboptimal performance in generating coherent arguments is their oversight of logical fallacies. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy categories. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as prior preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation.

Brain-Like Language Processing via a Shallow Untrained Multihead Attention Network

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective models of the human language system, with some models predicting most explainable variance of brain activity in current datasets. Even in untrained models, the representations induced by architectural priors can exhibit reasonable alignment to brain data. In this work, we investigate the key architectural components driving the surprising alignment of untrained models. To estimate LLM-to-brain similarity, we first select language-selective units within an LLM, similar to how neuroscientists identify the language network in the human brain. We then benchmark the brain alignment of these LLM units across five different brain recording datasets. By isolating critical components of the Transformer architecture, we identify tokenization strategy and multihead attention as the two major components driving brain alignment. A simple form of recurrence further improves alignment. We further demonstrate this quantitative brain alignment of our model by reproducing landmark studies in the language neuroscience field, showing that localized model units -- just like language voxels measured empirically in the human brain -- discriminate more reliably between lexical than syntactic differences, and exhibit similar response profiles under the same experimental conditions. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our model's representations for language modeling, achieving improved sample and parameter efficiency over comparable architectures. Our model's estimates of surprisal sets a new state-of-the-art in the behavioral alignment to human reading times. Taken together, we propose a highly brain- and behaviorally-aligned model that conceptualizes the human language system as an untrained shallow feature encoder, with structural priors, combined with a trained decoder to achieve efficient and performant language processing.

ComperDial: Commonsense Persona-grounded Dialogue Dataset and Benchmark

We propose a new benchmark, ComperDial, which facilitates the training and evaluation of evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. ComperDial consists of human-scored responses for 10,395 dialogue turns in 1,485 conversations collected from 99 dialogue agents submitted to the Commonsense Persona-grounded Dialogue (CPD) challenge. As a result, for any dialogue, our benchmark includes multiple diverse responses with variety of characteristics to ensure more robust evaluation of learned dialogue metrics. In addition to single-turn response scores, ComperDial also contains dialogue-level human-annotated scores, enabling joint assessment of multi-turn model responses throughout a dialogue. Finally, building off ComperDial, we devise a new automatic evaluation metric to measure the general similarity of model-generated dialogues to human conversations. Our experimental results demonstrate that our novel metric, CPDScore is more correlated with human judgments than existing metrics. We release both ComperDial and CPDScore to the community to accelerate development of automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems.