Verifiable by Design: Aligning Language Models to Quote from Pre-Training Data

For humans to trust the fluent generations of large language models (LLMs), they must be able to verify their correctness against trusted, external sources. Recent efforts aim to increase verifiability through citations of retrieved documents or post-hoc provenance. However, such citations are prone to mistakes that further complicate their verifiability. To address these limitations, we tackle the verifiability goal with a different philosophy: we trivialize the verification process by developing models that quote verbatim statements from trusted sources in pre-training data. We propose Quote-Tuning, which demonstrates the feasibility of aligning LLMs to leverage memorized information and quote from pre-training data. Quote-Tuning quantifies quoting against large corpora with efficient membership inference tools, and uses the amount of quotes as an implicit reward signal to construct a synthetic preference dataset for quoting, without any human annotation. Next, the target model is aligned to quote using preference optimization algorithms. Experimental results show that Quote-Tuning significantly increases the percentage of LLM generation quoted verbatim from high-quality pre-training documents by 55% to 130% relative to untuned models while maintaining response quality. Further experiments demonstrate that Quote-Tuning generalizes quoting to out-of-domain data, is applicable in different tasks, and provides additional benefits to truthfulness. Quote-Tuning not only serves as a hassle-free method to increase quoting but also opens up avenues for improving LLM trustworthiness through better verifiability.

SELF-[IN]CORRECT: LLMs Struggle with Refining Self-Generated Responses

Can LLMs continually improve their previous outputs for better results? An affirmative answer would require LLMs to be better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives, than generating initial responses. We explore the validity of this hypothesis in practice. We first introduce a unified framework that allows us to compare the generative and discriminative capability of any model on any task. Then, in our resulting experimental analysis of several LLMs, we do not observe the performance of those models on discrimination to be reliably better than generation. We hope these findings inform the growing literature on self-improvement AI systems.

Tur[k]ingBench: A Challenge Benchmark for Web Agents

Recent chatbots have demonstrated impressive ability to understand and communicate in raw-text form. However, there is more to the world than raw text. For example, humans spend long hours of their time on web pages, where text is intertwined with other modalities and tasks are accomplished in the form of various complex interactions. Can state-of-the-art multi-modal models generalize to such complex domains? To address this question, we introduce TurkingBench, a benchmark of tasks formulated as web pages containing textual instructions with multi-modal context. Unlike existing work which employs artificially synthesized web pages, here we use natural HTML pages that were originally designed for crowdsourcing workers for various annotation purposes. The HTML instructions of each task are also instantiated with various values (obtained from the crowdsourcing tasks) to form new instances of the task. This benchmark contains 32.2K instances distributed across 158 tasks. Additionally, to facilitate the evaluation on TurkingBench, we develop an evaluation framework that connects the responses of chatbots to modifications on web pages (modifying a text box, checking a radio, etc.). We evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art models, including language-only, vision-only, and layout-only models, and their combinations, on this benchmark. Our findings reveal that these models perform significantly better than random chance, yet considerable room exists for improvement. We hope this benchmark will help facilitate the evaluation and development of web-based agents.

Dated Data: Tracing Knowledge Cutoffs in Large Language Models

Released Large Language Models (LLMs) are often paired with a claimed knowledge cutoff date, or the dates at which training data was gathered. Such information is crucial for applications where the LLM must provide up to date information. However, this statement only scratches the surface: do all resources in the training data share the same knowledge cutoff date? Does the model's demonstrated knowledge for these subsets closely align to their cutoff dates? In this work, we define the notion of an effective cutoff. This is distinct from the LLM designer reported cutoff and applies separately to sub-resources and topics. We propose a simple approach to estimate effective cutoffs on the resource-level temporal alignment of an LLM by probing across versions of the data. Using this analysis, we find that effective cutoffs often differ from reported cutoffs. To understand the root cause of this observation, we conduct a direct large-scale analysis on open pre-training datasets. Our analysis reveals two reasons for these inconsistencies: (1) temporal biases of CommonCrawl data due to non-trivial amounts of old data in new dumps and (2) complications in LLM deduplication schemes involving semantic duplicates and lexical near-duplicates. Overall, our results show that knowledge cutoffs are not as simple as they have seemed and that care must be taken both by LLM dataset curators as well as practitioners who seek to use information from these models.

RORA: Robust Free-Text Rationale Evaluation

Free-text rationales play a pivotal role in explainable NLP, bridging the knowledge and reasoning gaps behind a model's decision-making. However, due to the diversity of potential reasoning paths and a corresponding lack of definitive ground truth, their evaluation remains a challenge. Existing evaluation metrics rely on the degree to which a rationale supports a target label, but we find these fall short in evaluating rationales that inadvertently leak the labels. To address this problem, we propose RORA, a Robust free-text Rationale evaluation against label leakage. RORA quantifies the new information supplied by a rationale to justify the label. This is achieved by assessing the conditional V-information \citep{hewitt-etal-2021-conditional} with a predictive family robust against leaky features that can be exploited by a small model. RORA consistently outperforms existing approaches in evaluating human-written, synthetic, or model-generated rationales, particularly demonstrating robustness against label leakage. We also show that RORA aligns well with human judgment, providing a more reliable and accurate measurement across diverse free-text rationales.

AnaloBench: Benchmarking the Identification of Abstract and Long-context Analogies

Humans regularly engage in analogical thinking, relating personal experiences to current situations ($X$ is analogous to $Y$ because of $Z$). Analogical thinking allows humans to solve problems in creative ways, grasp difficult concepts, and articulate ideas more effectively. Can language models (LMs) do the same? To answer this question, we propose ANALOBENCH, a benchmark to determine analogical reasoning ability in LMs. Our benchmarking approach focuses on aspects of this ability that are common among humans: (i) recalling related experiences from a large amount of information, and (ii) applying analogical reasoning to complex and lengthy scenarios. We test a broad collection of proprietary models (e.g., GPT family, Claude V2) and open source models such as LLaMA2. As in prior results, scaling up LMs results in some performance boosts. Surprisingly, scale offers minimal gains when, (i) analogies involve lengthy scenarios, or (ii) recalling relevant scenarios from a large pool of information, a process analogous to finding a needle in a haystack. We hope these observations encourage further research in this field.

k-SemStamp: A Clustering-Based Semantic Watermark for Detection of Machine-Generated Text

Recent watermarked generation algorithms inject detectable signatures during language generation to facilitate post-hoc detection. While token-level watermarks are vulnerable to paraphrase attacks, SemStamp (Hou et al., 2023) applies watermark on the semantic representation of sentences and demonstrates promising robustness. SemStamp employs locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) to partition the semantic space with arbitrary hyperplanes, which results in a suboptimal tradeoff between robustness and speed. We propose k-SemStamp, a simple yet effective enhancement of SemStamp, utilizing k-means clustering as an alternative of LSH to partition the embedding space with awareness of inherent semantic structure. Experimental results indicate that k-SemStamp saliently improves its robustness and sampling efficiency while preserving the generation quality, advancing a more effective tool for machine-generated text detection.

The Language Barrier: Dissecting Safety Challenges of LLMs in Multilingual Contexts

As the influence of large language models (LLMs) spans across global communities, their safety challenges in multilingual settings become paramount for alignment research. This paper examines the variations in safety challenges faced by LLMs across different languages and discusses approaches to alleviating such concerns. By comparing how state-of-the-art LLMs respond to the same set of malicious prompts written in higher- vs. lower-resource languages, we observe that (1) LLMs tend to generate unsafe responses much more often when a malicious prompt is written in a lower-resource language, and (2) LLMs tend to generate more irrelevant responses to malicious prompts in lower-resource languages. To understand where the discrepancy can be attributed, we study the effect of instruction tuning with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or supervised finetuning (SFT) on the HH-RLHF dataset. Surprisingly, while training with high-resource languages improves model alignment, training in lower-resource languages yields minimal improvement. This suggests that the bottleneck of cross-lingual alignment is rooted in the pretraining stage. Our findings highlight the challenges in cross-lingual LLM safety, and we hope they inform future research in this direction.