IsoBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Foundation Models on Isomorphic Representations

Current foundation models exhibit impressive capabilities when prompted either with text only or with both image and text inputs. But do their capabilities change depending on the input modality? In this work, we propose $\textbf{IsoBench}$, a benchmark dataset containing problems from four major areas: math, science, algorithms, and games. Each example is presented with multiple $\textbf{isomorphic representations}$ of inputs, such as visual, textual, and mathematical presentations. IsoBench provides fine-grained feedback to diagnose performance gaps caused by the form of the representation. Across various foundation models, we observe that on the same problem, models have a consistent preference towards textual representations. Most prominently, when evaluated on all IsoBench problems, Claude-3 Opus performs 28.7 points worse when provided with images instead of text; similarly, GPT-4 Turbo is 18.7 points worse and Gemini Pro is 14.9 points worse. Finally, we present two prompting techniques, $\textit{IsoCombination}$ and $\textit{IsoScratchPad}$, which improve model performance by considering combinations of, and translations between, different input representations.

Extracting Polymer Nanocomposite Samples from Full-Length Documents

This paper investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) for extracting sample lists of polymer nanocomposites (PNCs) from full-length materials science research papers. The challenge lies in the complex nature of PNC samples, which have numerous attributes scattered throughout the text. The complexity of annotating detailed information on PNCs limits the availability of data, making conventional document-level relation extraction techniques impractical due to the challenge in creating comprehensive named entity span annotations. To address this, we introduce a new benchmark and an evaluation technique for this task and explore different prompting strategies in a zero-shot manner. We also incorporate self-consistency to improve the performance. Our findings show that even advanced LLMs struggle to extract all of the samples from an article. Finally, we analyze the errors encountered in this process, categorizing them into three main challenges, and discuss potential strategies for future research to overcome them.

LLM-Resistant Math Word Problem Generation via Adversarial Attacks

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly transformed the educational landscape. As current plagiarism detection tools struggle to keep pace with LLMs' rapid advancements, the educational community faces the challenge of assessing students' true problem-solving abilities in the presence of LLMs. In this work, we explore a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation -- generating adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs. Focusing on the domain of math word problems, we leverage abstract syntax trees to structurally generate adversarial examples that cause LLMs to produce incorrect answers by simply editing the numeric values in the problems. We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability. We identify shared vulnerabilities among LLMs and propose a cost-effective approach to attack high-cost models. Additionally, we conduct automatic analysis on math problems and investigate the cause of failure to guide future research on LLM's mathematical capability.

Calibrating Long-form Generations from Large Language Models

To enhance Large Language Models' (LLMs) reliability, calibration is essential -- the model's assessed confidence scores should align with the actual likelihood of its responses being correct. However, current confidence elicitation methods and calibration metrics typically rely on a binary true/false assessment of response correctness. This approach does not apply to long-form generation, where an answer can be partially correct. Addressing this gap, we introduce a unified calibration framework, in which both the correctness of the LLMs' responses and their associated confidence levels are treated as distributions across a range of scores. Within this framework, we develop three metrics to precisely evaluate LLM calibration and further propose two confidence elicitation methods based on self-consistency and self-evaluation. Our experiments, which include long-form QA and summarization tasks, demonstrate that larger models don't necessarily guarantee better calibration, that calibration performance is found to be metric-dependent, and that self-consistency methods excel in factoid datasets. We also find that calibration can be enhanced through techniques such as fine-tuning, integrating relevant source documents, scaling the temperature, and combining self-consistency with self-evaluation. Lastly, we showcase a practical application of our system: selecting and cascading open-source models and ChatGPT to optimize correctness given a limited API budget. This research not only challenges existing notions of LLM calibration but also offers practical methodologies for improving trustworthiness in long-form generation.

Hierarchical Multi-Label Classification of Online Vaccine Concerns

Vaccine concerns are an ever-evolving target, and can shift quickly as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying longitudinal trends in vaccine concerns and misinformation might inform the healthcare space by helping public health efforts strategically allocate resources or information campaigns. We explore the task of detecting vaccine concerns in online discourse using large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting without the need for expensive training datasets. Since real-time monitoring of online sources requires large-scale inference, we explore cost-accuracy trade-offs of different prompting strategies and offer concrete takeaways that may inform choices in system designs for current applications. An analysis of different prompting strategies reveals that classifying the concerns over multiple passes through the LLM, each consisting a boolean question whether the text mentions a vaccine concern or not, works the best. Our results indicate that GPT-4 can strongly outperform crowdworker accuracy when compared to ground truth annotations provided by experts on the recently introduced VaxConcerns dataset, achieving an overall F1 score of 78.7%.

Hierarchical Multi-Instance Multi-Label Learning for Detecting Propaganda Techniques

Since the introduction of the SemEval 2020 Task 11 (Martino et al., 2020a), several approaches have been proposed in the literature for classifying propaganda based on the rhetorical techniques used to influence readers. These methods, however, classify one span at a time, ignoring dependencies from the labels of other spans within the same context. In this paper, we approach propaganda technique classification as a Multi-Instance Multi-Label (MIML) learning problem (Zhou et al., 2012) and propose a simple RoBERTa-based model (Zhuang et al., 2021) for classifying all spans in an article simultaneously. Further, we note that, due to the annotation process where annotators classified the spans by following a decision tree, there is an inherent hierarchical relationship among the different techniques, which existing approaches ignore. We incorporate these hierarchical label dependencies by adding an auxiliary classifier for each node in the decision tree to the training objective and ensembling the predictions from the original and auxiliary classifiers at test time. Overall, our model leads to an absolute improvement of 2.47% micro-F1 over the model from the shared task winning team in a cross-validation setup and is the best performing non-ensemble model on the shared task leaderboard.

Selectively Answering Ambiguous Questions

Trustworthy language models should abstain from answering questions when they do not know the answer. However, the answer to a question can be unknown for a variety of reasons. Prior research has focused on the case in which the question is clear and the answer is unambiguous but possibly unknown. However, the answer to a question can also be unclear due to uncertainty of the questioner's intent or context. We investigate question answering from this perspective, focusing on answering a subset of questions with a high degree of accuracy, from a set of questions in which many are inherently ambiguous. In this setting, we find that the most reliable approach to calibration involves quantifying repetition within a set of sampled model outputs, rather than the model's likelihood or self-verification as used in prior work. % We find this to be the case across different types of uncertainty, varying model scales and both with or without instruction tuning. Our results suggest that sampling-based confidence scores help calibrate answers to relatively unambiguous questions, with more dramatic improvements on ambiguous questions.

Salient Span Masking for Temporal Understanding

Salient Span Masking (SSM) has shown itself to be an effective strategy to improve closed-book question answering performance. SSM extends general masked language model pretraining by creating additional unsupervised training sentences that mask a single entity or date span, thus oversampling factual information. Despite the success of this paradigm, the span types and sampling strategies are relatively arbitrary and not widely studied for other tasks. Thus, we investigate SSM from the perspective of temporal tasks, where learning a good representation of various temporal expressions is important. To that end, we introduce Temporal Span Masking (TSM) intermediate training. First, we find that SSM alone improves the downstream performance on three temporal tasks by an avg. +5.8 points. Further, we are able to achieve additional improvements (avg. +0.29 points) by adding the TSM task. These comprise the new best reported results on the targeted tasks. Our analysis suggests that the effectiveness of SSM stems from the sentences chosen in the training data rather than the mask choice: sentences with entities frequently also contain temporal expressions. Nonetheless, the additional targeted spans of TSM can still improve performance, especially in a zero-shot context.

Learning the Legibility of Visual Text Perturbations

Many adversarial attacks in NLP perturb inputs to produce visually similar strings ('ergo' $\rightarrow$ '$\epsilon$rgo') which are legible to humans but degrade model performance. Although preserving legibility is a necessary condition for text perturbation, little work has been done to systematically characterize it; instead, legibility is typically loosely enforced via intuitions around the nature and extent of perturbations. Particularly, it is unclear to what extent can inputs be perturbed while preserving legibility, or how to quantify the legibility of a perturbed string. In this work, we address this gap by learning models that predict the legibility of a perturbed string, and rank candidate perturbations based on their legibility. To do so, we collect and release LEGIT, a human-annotated dataset comprising the legibility of visually perturbed text. Using this dataset, we build both text- and vision-based models which achieve up to $0.91$ F1 score in predicting whether an input is legible, and an accuracy of $0.86$ in predicting which of two given perturbations is more legible. Additionally, we discover that legible perturbations from the LEGIT dataset are more effective at lowering the performance of NLP models than best-known attack strategies, suggesting that current models may be vulnerable to a broad range of perturbations beyond what is captured by existing visual attacks. Data, code, and models are available at https://github.com/dvsth/learning-legibility-2023.

DIFFQG: Generating Questions to Summarize Factual Changes

Identifying the difference between two versions of the same article is useful to update knowledge bases and to understand how articles evolve. Paired texts occur naturally in diverse situations: reporters write similar news stories and maintainers of authoritative websites must keep their information up to date. We propose representing factual changes between paired documents as question-answer pairs, where the answer to the same question differs between two versions. We find that question-answer pairs can flexibly and concisely capture the updated contents. Provided with paired documents, annotators identify questions that are answered by one passage but answered differently or cannot be answered by the other. We release DIFFQG which consists of 759 QA pairs and 1153 examples of paired passages with no factual change. These questions are intended to be both unambiguous and information-seeking and involve complex edits, pushing beyond the capabilities of current question generation and factual change detection systems. Our dataset summarizes the changes between two versions of the document as questions and answers, studying automatic update summarization in a novel way.