Standardizing the Measurement of Text Diversity: A Tool and a Comparative Analysis of Scores

The diversity across outputs generated by large language models shapes the perception of their quality and utility. Prompt leaks, templated answer structure, and canned responses across different interactions are readily noticed by people, but there is no standard score to measure this aspect of model behavior. In this work we empirically investigate diversity scores on English texts. We find that computationally efficient compression algorithms capture information similar to what is measured by slow to compute $n$-gram overlap homogeneity scores. Further, a combination of measures -- compression ratios, self-repetition of long $n$-grams and Self-BLEU and BERTScore -- are sufficient to report, as they have low mutual correlation with each other. The applicability of scores extends beyond analysis of generative models; for example, we highlight applications on instruction-tuning datasets and human-produced texts. We release a diversity score package to facilitate research and invite consistency across reports.

How Much Annotation is Needed to Compare Summarization Models?

Modern instruction-tuned models have become highly capable in text generation tasks such as summarization, and are expected to be released at a steady pace. In practice one may now wish to choose confidently, but with minimal effort, the best performing summarization model when applied to a new domain or purpose. In this work, we empirically investigate the test sample size necessary to select a preferred model in the context of news summarization. Empirical results reveal that comparative evaluation converges quickly for both automatic and human evaluation, with clear preferences for a system emerging from under 100 examples. The human preference data allows us to quantify how well automatic scores can reproduce preference rankings across a variety of downstream summarization tasks. We find that, while automatic metrics are stable at smaller sample sizes, only some automatic metrics are able to moderately predict model win rates according to human preference.

Chain of Logic: Rule-Based Reasoning with Large Language Models

Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to compositional rules - rules consisting of multiple elements which form a complex logical expression. Reasoning about compositional rules is challenging because it requires multiple reasoning steps, and attending to the logical relationships between elements. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition (solving elements as independent threads of logic), and recomposition (recombining these sub-answers to resolve the underlying logical expression). This method was inspired by the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, a sequential reasoning approach used by lawyers. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark and demonstrate it consistently outperforms other prompting methods, including chain of thought and self-ask, using open-source and commercial language models.

Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable advances in language generation and understanding but are also prone to exhibiting harmful social biases. While recognition of these behaviors has generated an abundance of bias mitigation techniques, most require modifications to the training data, model parameters, or decoding strategy, which may be infeasible without access to a trainable model. In this work, we leverage the zero-shot capabilities of LLMs to reduce stereotyping in a technique we introduce as zero-shot self-debiasing. With two approaches, self-debiasing via explanation and self-debiasing via reprompting, we show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups while relying only on the LLM itself and a simple prompt, with explanations correctly identifying invalid assumptions and reprompting delivering the greatest reductions in bias. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.

AutoDAN: Automatic and Interpretable Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models

Safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be compromised with manual jailbreak attacks and (automatic) adversarial attacks. Recent work suggests that patching LLMs against these attacks is possible: manual jailbreak attacks are human-readable but often limited and public, making them easy to block; adversarial attacks generate gibberish prompts that can be detected using perplexity-based filters. In this paper, we show that these solutions may be too optimistic. We propose an interpretable adversarial attack, \texttt{AutoDAN}, that combines the strengths of both types of attacks. It automatically generates attack prompts that bypass perplexity-based filters while maintaining a high attack success rate like manual jailbreak attacks. These prompts are interpretable and diverse, exhibiting strategies commonly used in manual jailbreak attacks, and transfer better than their non-readable counterparts when using limited training data or a single proxy model. We also customize \texttt{AutoDAN}'s objective to leak system prompts, another jailbreak application not addressed in the adversarial attack literature. %, demonstrating the versatility of the approach. We can also customize the objective of \texttt{AutoDAN} to leak system prompts, beyond the ability to elicit harmful content from the model, demonstrating the versatility of the approach. Our work provides a new way to red-team LLMs and to understand the mechanism of jailbreak attacks.

PDFTriage: Question Answering over Long, Structured Documents

Large Language Models (LLMs) have issues with document question answering (QA) in situations where the document is unable to fit in the small context length of an LLM. To overcome this issue, most existing works focus on retrieving the relevant context from the document, representing them as plain text. However, documents such as PDFs, web pages, and presentations are naturally structured with different pages, tables, sections, and so on. Representing such structured documents as plain text is incongruous with the user's mental model of these documents with rich structure. When a system has to query the document for context, this incongruity is brought to the fore, and seemingly trivial questions can trip up the QA system. To bridge this fundamental gap in handling structured documents, we propose an approach called PDFTriage that enables models to retrieve the context based on either structure or content. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed PDFTriage-augmented models across several classes of questions where existing retrieval-augmented LLMs fail. To facilitate further research on this fundamental problem, we release our benchmark dataset consisting of 900+ human-generated questions over 80 structured documents from 10 different categories of question types for document QA.

Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.

Mitigating Noisy Inputs for Question Answering

Natural language processing systems are often downstream of unreliable inputs: machine translation, optical character recognition, or speech recognition. For instance, virtual assistants can only answer your questions after understanding your speech. We investigate and mitigate the effects of noise from Automatic Speech Recognition systems on two factoid Question Answering (QA) tasks. Integrating confidences into the model and forced decoding of unknown words are empirically shown to improve the accuracy of downstream neural QA systems. We create and train models on a synthetic corpus of over 500,000 noisy sentences and evaluate on two human corpora from Quizbowl and Jeopardy! competitions.