SCORE: A framework for Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning ability in various language-based tasks. Despite many proposed reasoning methods aimed at enhancing performance in downstream tasks, two fundamental questions persist: Does reasoning genuinely support predictions, and how reliable is the quality of reasoning? In this paper, we propose a framework \textsc{SCORE} to analyze how well LLMs can reason. Specifically, we focus on self-contradictory reasoning, where reasoning does not support the prediction. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves when performing reasoning tasks that involve contextual information and commonsense. The model may miss evidence or use shortcuts, thereby exhibiting self-contradictory behaviors. We also employ the Point-of-View (POV) method, which probes models to generate reasoning from multiple perspectives, as a diagnostic tool for further analysis. We find that though LLMs may appear to perform well in one-perspective settings, they fail to stabilize such behavior in multi-perspectives settings. Even for correct predictions, the reasoning may be messy and incomplete, and LLMs can easily be led astray from good reasoning. \textsc{SCORE}'s results underscore the lack of robustness required for trustworthy reasoning and the urgency for further research to establish best practices for a comprehensive evaluation of reasoning beyond accuracy-based metrics.

Safer-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Automated Preference Data

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a vital strategy for enhancing model safety in language models. However, annotating preference data for RLHF is a resource-intensive and creativity-demanding process, while automatic generation methods face limitations in data diversity and quality. In response, we present Safer-Instruct, a novel pipeline for semi-automatically constructing large-scale preference datasets. Our approach leverages reversed instruction tuning, instruction induction, and expert model evaluation to efficiently generate high-quality preference data without human annotators. We evaluate Safer-Instruct using LLaMA for instruction induction and GPT-4 as an expert model, generating approximately 10K preference samples. Finetuning an Alpaca model on this dataset demonstrates improved harmlessness while maintaining competitive performance on conversation and downstream tasks. Safer-Instruct addresses the challenges in preference data acquisition, advancing the development of safer and more responsible AI systems. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/uscnlp-lime/safer-instruct

Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives

People from different social and demographic groups express diverse perspectives and conflicting opinions on a broad set of topics such as product reviews, healthcare, law, and politics. A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. However, current work in summarization metrics and Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluation has not explored fair abstractive summarization. In this paper, we systematically investigate fair abstractive summarization for user-generated data. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people and propose four reference-free automatic metrics measuring the differences between target and source perspectives. We evaluate five LLMs, including three GPT models, Alpaca, and Claude, on six datasets collected from social media, online reviews, and recorded transcripts. Experiments show that both the model-generated and the human-written reference summaries suffer from low fairness. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the common factors influencing fairness and propose three simple but effective methods to alleviate unfair summarization. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/FairSumm.

Are Personalized Stochastic Parrots More Dangerous? Evaluating Persona Biases in Dialogue Systems

Recent advancements in Large Language Models empower them to follow freeform instructions, including imitating generic or specific demographic personas in conversations. We define generic personas to represent demographic groups, such as "an Asian person", whereas specific personas may take the form of specific popular Asian names like "Yumi". While the adoption of personas enriches user experiences by making dialogue systems more engaging and approachable, it also casts a shadow of potential risk by exacerbating social biases within model responses, thereby causing societal harm through interactions with users. In this paper, we systematically study "persona biases", which we define to be the sensitivity of dialogue models' harmful behaviors contingent upon the personas they adopt. We categorize persona biases into biases in harmful expression and harmful agreement, and establish a comprehensive evaluation framework to measure persona biases in five aspects: Offensiveness, Toxic Continuation, Regard, Stereotype Agreement, and Toxic Agreement. Additionally, we propose to investigate persona biases by experimenting with UNIVERSALPERSONA, a systematically constructed persona dataset encompassing various types of both generic and specific model personas. Through benchmarking on four different models -- including Blender, ChatGPT, Alpaca, and Vicuna -- our study uncovers significant persona biases in dialogue systems. Our findings also underscore the pressing need to revisit the use of personas in dialogue agents to ensure safe application.

Equal Long-term Benefit Rate: Adapting Static Fairness Notions to Sequential Decision Making

Decisions made by machine learning models may have lasting impacts over time, making long-term fairness a crucial consideration. It has been shown that when ignoring the long-term effect, naively imposing fairness criterion in static settings can actually exacerbate bias over time. To explicitly address biases in sequential decision-making, recent works formulate long-term fairness notions in Markov Decision Process (MDP) framework. They define the long-term bias to be the sum of static bias over each time step. However, we demonstrate that naively summing up the step-wise bias can cause a false sense of fairness since it fails to consider the importance difference of different time steps during transition. In this work, we introduce a long-term fairness notion called Equal Long-term Benefit Rate (ELBERT), which explicitly considers varying temporal importance and adapts static fairness principles to the sequential setting. Moreover, we show that the policy gradient of Long-term Benefit Rate can be analytically reduced to standard policy gradient. This makes standard policy optimization methods applicable for reducing the bias, leading to our proposed bias mitigation method ELBERT-PO. Experiments on three sequential decision making environments show that ELBERT-PO significantly reduces bias and maintains high utility. Code is available at https://github.com/Yuancheng-Xu/ELBERT.

TACO: Temporal Latent Action-Driven Contrastive Loss for Visual Reinforcement Learning

Despite recent progress in reinforcement learning (RL) from raw pixel data, sample inefficiency continues to present a substantial obstacle. Prior works have attempted to address this challenge by creating self-supervised auxiliary tasks, aiming to enrich the agent's learned representations with control-relevant information for future state prediction. However, these objectives are often insufficient to learn representations that can represent the optimal policy or value function, and they often consider tasks with small, abstract discrete action spaces and thus overlook the importance of action representation learning in continuous control. In this paper, we introduce TACO: Temporal Action-driven Contrastive Learning, a simple yet powerful temporal contrastive learning approach that facilitates the concurrent acquisition of latent state and action representations for agents. TACO simultaneously learns a state and an action representation by optimizing the mutual information between representations of current states paired with action sequences and representations of the corresponding future states. Theoretically, TACO can be shown to learn state and action representations that encompass sufficient information for control, thereby improving sample efficiency. For online RL, TACO achieves 40% performance boost after one million environment interaction steps on average across nine challenging visual continuous control tasks from Deepmind Control Suite. In addition, we show that TACO can also serve as a plug-and-play module adding to existing offline visual RL methods to establish the new state-of-the-art performance for offline visual RL across offline datasets with varying quality.

Auditing Algorithmic Fairness in Machine Learning for Health with Severity-Based LOGAN

Auditing machine learning-based (ML) healthcare tools for bias is critical to preventing patient harm, especially in communities that disproportionately face health inequities. General frameworks are becoming increasingly available to measure ML fairness gaps between groups. However, ML for health (ML4H) auditing principles call for a contextual, patient-centered approach to model assessment. Therefore, ML auditing tools must be (1) better aligned with ML4H auditing principles and (2) able to illuminate and characterize communities vulnerable to the most harm. To address this gap, we propose supplementing ML4H auditing frameworks with SLOGAN (patient Severity-based LOcal Group biAs detectioN), an automatic tool for capturing local biases in a clinical prediction task. SLOGAN adapts an existing tool, LOGAN (LOcal Group biAs detectioN), by contextualizing group bias detection in patient illness severity and past medical history. We investigate and compare SLOGAN's bias detection capabilities to LOGAN and other clustering techniques across patient subgroups in the MIMIC-III dataset. On average, SLOGAN identifies larger fairness disparities in over 75% of patient groups than LOGAN while maintaining clustering quality. Furthermore, in a diabetes case study, health disparity literature corroborates the characterizations of the most biased clusters identified by SLOGAN. Our results contribute to the broader discussion of how machine learning biases may perpetuate existing healthcare disparities.

Investigating Ensemble Methods for Model Robustness Improvement of Text Classifiers

Large pre-trained language models have shown remarkable performance over the past few years. These models, however, sometimes learn superficial features from the dataset and cannot generalize to the distributions that are dissimilar to the training scenario. There have been several approaches proposed to reduce model's reliance on these bias features which can improve model robustness in the out-of-distribution setting. However, existing methods usually use a fixed low-capacity model to deal with various bias features, which ignore the learnability of those features. In this paper, we analyze a set of existing bias features and demonstrate there is no single model that works best for all the cases. We further show that by choosing an appropriate bias model, we can obtain a better robustness result than baselines with a more sophisticated model design.