Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is \textit{debate}, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76\% and 88\% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48\% and 60\%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

Large language models are not zero-shot communicators

Despite widespread use of LLMs as conversational agents, evaluations of performance fail to capture a crucial aspect of communication: interpreting language in context. Humans interpret language using beliefs and prior knowledge about the world. For example, we intuitively understand the response "I wore gloves" to the question "Did you leave fingerprints?" as meaning "No". To investigate whether LLMs have the ability to make this type of inference, known as an implicature, we design a simple task and evaluate widely used state-of-the-art models. We find that, despite only evaluating on utterances that require a binary inference (yes or no), most perform close to random. Models adapted to be "aligned with human intent" perform much better, but still show a significant gap with human performance. We present our findings as the starting point for further research into evaluating how LLMs interpret language in context and to drive the development of more pragmatic and useful models of human discourse.

Improving Systematic Generalization Through Modularity and Augmentation

Systematic generalization is the ability to combine known parts into novel meaning; an important aspect of efficient human learning, but a weakness of neural network learning. In this work, we investigate how two well-known modeling principles -- modularity and data augmentation -- affect systematic generalization of neural networks in grounded language learning. We analyze how large the vocabulary needs to be to achieve systematic generalization and how similar the augmented data needs to be to the problem at hand. Our findings show that even in the controlled setting of a synthetic benchmark, achieving systematic generalization remains very difficult. After training on an augmented dataset with almost forty times more adverbs than the original problem, a non-modular baseline is not able to systematically generalize to a novel combination of a known verb and adverb. When separating the task into cognitive processes like perception and navigation, a modular neural network is able to utilize the augmented data and generalize more systematically, achieving 70% and 40% exact match increase over state-of-the-art on two gSCAN tests that have not previously been improved. We hope that this work gives insight into the drivers of systematic generalization, and what we still need to improve for neural networks to learn more like humans do.

A Benchmark for Systematic Generalization in Grounded Language Understanding

Human language users easily interpret expressions that describe unfamiliar situations composed from familiar parts ("greet the pink brontosaurus by the ferris wheel"). Modern neural networks, by contrast, struggle to interpret compositions unseen in training. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark, gSCAN, for evaluating compositional generalization in models of situated language understanding. We take inspiration from standard models of meaning composition in formal linguistics. Going beyond an earlier related benchmark that focused on syntactic aspects of generalization, gSCAN defines a language grounded in the states of a grid world. This allows us to build novel generalization tasks that probe the acquisition of linguistically motivated rules. For example, agents must understand how adjectives such as 'small' are interpreted relative to the current world state or how adverbs such as 'cautiously' combine with new verbs. We test a strong multi-modal baseline model and a state-of-the-art compositional method finding that, in most cases, they fail dramatically when generalization requires systematic compositional rules.

Insertion-Deletion Transformer

We propose the Insertion-Deletion Transformer, a novel transformer-based neural architecture and training method for sequence generation. The model consists of two phases that are executed iteratively, 1) an insertion phase and 2) a deletion phase. The insertion phase parameterizes a distribution of insertions on the current output hypothesis, while the deletion phase parameterizes a distribution of deletions over the current output hypothesis. The training method is a principled and simple algorithm, where the deletion model obtains its signal directly on-policy from the insertion model output. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our Insertion-Deletion Transformer on synthetic translation tasks, obtaining significant BLEU score improvement over an insertion-only model.