Can Few-shot Work in Long-Context? Recycling the Context to Generate Demonstrations

Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance on tasks involving long contexts remains sub-optimal. In-Context Learning (ICL) with few-shot examples may be an appealing solution to enhance LLM performance in this scenario; However, naively adding ICL examples with long context introduces challenges, including substantial token overhead added for each few-shot example and context mismatch between the demonstrations and the target query. In this work, we propose to automatically generate few-shot examples for long context QA tasks by recycling contexts. Specifically, given a long input context (1-3k tokens) and a query, we generate additional query-output pairs from the given context as few-shot examples, while introducing the context only once. This ensures that the demonstrations are leveraging the same context as the target query while only adding a small number of tokens to the prompt. We further enhance each demonstration by instructing the model to explicitly identify the relevant paragraphs before the answer, which improves performance while providing fine-grained attribution to the answer source. We apply our method on multiple LLMs and obtain substantial improvements on various QA datasets with long context, especially when the answer lies within the middle of the context. Surprisingly, despite introducing only single-hop ICL examples, LLMs also successfully generalize to multi-hop long-context QA using our approach.

TACT: Advancing Complex Aggregative Reasoning with Information Extraction Tools

Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not perform well on queries that require the aggregation of information across texts. To better evaluate this setting and facilitate modeling efforts, we introduce TACT - Text And Calculations through Tables, a dataset crafted to evaluate LLMs' reasoning and computational abilities using complex instructions. TACT contains challenging instructions that demand stitching information scattered across one or more texts, and performing complex integration on this information to generate the answer. We construct this dataset by leveraging an existing dataset of texts and their associated tables. For each such tables, we formulate new queries, and gather their respective answers. We demonstrate that all contemporary LLMs perform poorly on this dataset, achieving an accuracy below 38\%. To pinpoint the difficulties and thoroughly dissect the problem, we analyze model performance across three components: table-generation, Pandas command-generation, and execution. Unexpectedly, we discover that each component presents substantial challenges for current LLMs. These insights lead us to propose a focused modeling framework, which we refer to as IE as a tool. Specifically, we propose to add "tools" for each of the above steps, and implement each such tool with few-shot prompting. This approach shows an improvement over existing prompting techniques, offering a promising direction for enhancing model capabilities in these tasks.

Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?

When large language models are aligned via supervised fine-tuning, they may encounter new factual information that was not acquired through pre-training. It is often conjectured that this can teach the model the behavior of hallucinating factually incorrect responses, as the model is trained to generate facts that are not grounded in its pre-existing knowledge. In this work, we study the impact of such exposure to new knowledge on the capability of the fine-tuned model to utilize its pre-existing knowledge. To this end, we design a controlled setup, focused on closed-book QA, where we vary the proportion of the fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge. We demonstrate that large language models struggle to acquire new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, as fine-tuning examples that introduce new knowledge are learned significantly slower than those consistent with the model's knowledge. However, we also find that as the examples with new knowledge are eventually learned, they linearly increase the model's tendency to hallucinate. Taken together, our results highlight the risk in introducing new factual knowledge through fine-tuning, and support the view that large language models mostly acquire factual knowledge through pre-training, whereas fine-tuning teaches them to use it more efficiently.

Constructing Benchmarks and Interventions for Combating Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to hallucination, which sparked a widespread effort to detect and prevent them. Recent work attempts to mitigate hallucinations by intervening in the model's computation during generation, using different setups and heuristics. Those works lack separation between different hallucination causes. In this work, we first introduce an approach for constructing datasets based on the model knowledge for detection and intervention methods in closed-book and open-book question-answering settings. We then characterize the effect of different choices for intervention, such as the intervened components (MLPs, attention block, residual stream, and specific heads), and how often and how strongly to intervene. We find that intervention success varies depending on the component, with some components being detrimental to language modeling capabilities. Finally, we find that interventions can benefit from pre-hallucination steering direction instead of post-hallucination. The code is available at https://github.com/technion-cs-nlp/hallucination-mitigation

MiMiC: Minimally Modified Counterfactuals in the Representation Space

Language models often exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as gender bias or toxic language. Interventions in the representation space were shown effective in mitigating such issues by altering the LM behavior. We first show that two prominent intervention techniques, Linear Erasure and Steering Vectors, do not enable a high degree of control and are limited in expressivity. We then propose a novel intervention methodology for generating expressive counterfactuals in the representation space, aiming to make representations of a source class (e.g., "toxic") resemble those of a target class (e.g., "non-toxic"). This approach, generalizing previous linear intervention techniques, utilizes a closed-form solution for the Earth Mover's problem under Gaussian assumptions and provides theoretical guarantees on the representation space's geometric organization. We further build on this technique and derive a nonlinear intervention that enables controlled generation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approaches in mitigating bias in multiclass classification and in reducing the generation of toxic language, outperforming strong baselines.

A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains

Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., "Chain-of-Thought") is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning steps to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce Reveal: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a new dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question answering settings. Reveal includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a wide variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models.

Multilingual Instruction Tuning With Just a Pinch of Multilinguality

As instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) gain global adoption, their ability to follow instructions in multiple languages becomes increasingly crucial. One promising approach is cross-lingual transfer, where a model acquires specific functionality on some language by finetuning on another language. In this work, we investigate how multilinguality during instruction tuning of a multilingual LLM affects instruction-following across languages. We first show that many languages transfer some instruction-following capabilities to other languages from even monolingual tuning. Furthermore, we find that only 40 multilingual examples in an English tuning set substantially improve multilingual instruction-following, both in seen and unseen languages during tuning. In general, we observe that models tuned on multilingual mixtures exhibit comparable or superior performance in several languages compared to monolingually tuned models, despite training on 10x fewer examples in those languages. Finally, we find that increasing the number of languages in the instruction tuning set from 1 to only 2, 3, or 4 increases cross-lingual generalization. Our results suggest that building massively multilingual instruction-tuned models can be done with only a very small set of multilingual instruction-responses.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Tool-Assisted Generation Strategies

A growing area of research investigates augmenting language models with tools (e.g., search engines, calculators) to overcome their shortcomings (e.g., missing or incorrect knowledge, incorrect logical inferences). Various few-shot tool-usage strategies have been proposed. However, there is no systematic and fair comparison across different strategies, or between these strategies and strong baselines that do not leverage tools. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis, finding that (1) across various datasets, example difficulty levels, and models, strong no-tool baselines are competitive to tool-assisted strategies, implying that effectively using tools with in-context demonstrations is a difficult unsolved problem; (2) for knowledge-retrieval tasks, strategies that *refine* incorrect outputs with tools outperform strategies that retrieve relevant information *ahead of* or *during generation*; (3) tool-assisted strategies are expensive in the number of tokens they require to work -- incurring additional costs by orders of magnitude -- which does not translate into significant improvement in performance. Overall, our findings suggest that few-shot tool integration is still an open challenge, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of future strategies to accurately assess their *benefits* and *costs*.

Evaluating and Modeling Attribution for Cross-Lingual Question Answering

Trustworthy answer content is abundant in many high-resource languages and is instantly accessible through question answering systems, yet this content can be hard to access for those that do not speak these languages. The leap forward in cross-lingual modeling quality offered by generative language models offers much promise, yet their raw generations often fall short in factuality. To improve trustworthiness in these systems, a promising direction is to attribute the answer to a retrieved source, possibly in a content-rich language different from the query. Our work is the first to study attribution for cross-lingual question answering. First, we collect data in 5 languages to assess the attribution level of a state-of-the-art cross-lingual QA system. To our surprise, we find that a substantial portion of the answers is not attributable to any retrieved passages (up to 50% of answers exactly matching a gold reference) despite the system being able to attend directly to the retrieved text. Second, to address this poor attribution level, we experiment with a wide range of attribution detection techniques. We find that Natural Language Inference models and PaLM 2 fine-tuned on a very small amount of attribution data can accurately detect attribution. Based on these models, we improve the attribution level of a cross-lingual question-answering system. Overall, we show that current academic generative cross-lingual QA systems have substantial shortcomings in attribution and we build tooling to mitigate these issues.

What You See is What You Read? Improving Text-Image Alignment Evaluation

Automatically determining whether a text and a corresponding image are semantically aligned is a significant challenge for vision-language models, with applications in generative text-to-image and image-to-text tasks. In this work, we study methods for automatic text-image alignment evaluation. We first introduce SeeTRUE: a comprehensive evaluation set, spanning multiple datasets from both text-to-image and image-to-text generation tasks, with human judgements for whether a given text-image pair is semantically aligned. We then describe two automatic methods to determine alignment: the first involving a pipeline based on question generation and visual question answering models, and the second employing an end-to-end classification approach by finetuning multimodal pretrained models. Both methods surpass prior approaches in various text-image alignment tasks, with significant improvements in challenging cases that involve complex composition or unnatural images. Finally, we demonstrate how our approaches can localize specific misalignments between an image and a given text, and how they can be used to automatically re-rank candidates in text-to-image generation.