Language Models (LMs) have shown impressive performance in various natural language tasks. However, when it comes to natural language reasoning, LMs still face challenges such as hallucination, generating incorrect intermediate reasoning steps, and making mathematical errors. Recent research has focused on enhancing LMs through self-improvement using feedback. Nevertheless, existing approaches relying on a single generic feedback source fail to address the diverse error types found in LM-generated reasoning chains. In this work, we propose Multi-Aspect Feedback, an iterative refinement framework that integrates multiple feedback modules, including frozen LMs and external tools, each focusing on a specific error category. Our experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach to addressing several errors in the LM-generated reasoning chain and thus improving the overall performance of an LM in several reasoning tasks. We see a relative improvement of up to 20% in Mathematical Reasoning and up to 18% in Logical Entailment.
Fact-checking real-world claims often requires complex, multi-step reasoning due to the absence of direct evidence to support or refute them. However, existing fact-checking systems often lack transparency in their decision-making, making it challenging for users to comprehend their reasoning process. To address this, we propose the Question-guided Multi-hop Fact-Checking (QACHECK) system, which guides the model's reasoning process by asking a series of questions critical for verifying a claim. QACHECK has five key modules: a claim verifier, a question generator, a question-answering module, a QA validator, and a reasoner. Users can input a claim into QACHECK, which then predicts its veracity and provides a comprehensive report detailing its reasoning process, guided by a sequence of (question, answer) pairs. QACHECK also provides the source of evidence supporting each question, fostering a transparent, explainable, and user-friendly fact-checking process. A recorded video of QACHECK is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju8kxSldM64
Although achieving great success, Large Language Models (LLMs) usually suffer from unreliable hallucinations. In this paper, we define a new task of Knowledge-aware Language Model Attribution (KaLMA) that improves upon three core concerns on conventional attributed LMs. First, we extend attribution source from unstructured texts to Knowledge Graph (KG), whose rich structures benefit both the attribution performance and working scenarios. Second, we propose a new ``Conscious Incompetence" setting considering the incomplete knowledge repository, where the model identifies the need for supporting knowledge beyond the provided KG. Third, we propose a comprehensive automatic evaluation metric encompassing text quality, citation quality, and text citation alignment. To implement the above innovations, we build a dataset in biography domain BioKaLMA via a well-designed evolutionary question generation strategy, to control the question complexity and necessary knowledge to the answer. For evaluation, we develop a baseline solution and demonstrate the room for improvement in LLMs' citation generation, emphasizing the importance of incorporating the "Conscious Incompetence" setting, and the critical role of retrieval accuracy.
Humans ask follow-up questions driven by curiosity, which reflects a creative human cognitive process. We introduce the task of real-world information-seeking follow-up question generation (FQG), which aims to generate follow-up questions seeking a more in-depth understanding of an initial question and answer. We construct FOLLOWUPQG, a dataset of over 3K real-world (initial question, answer, follow-up question) tuples collected from a Reddit forum providing layman-friendly explanations for open-ended questions. In contrast to existing datasets, questions in FOLLOWUPQG use more diverse pragmatic strategies to seek information, and they also show higher-order cognitive skills (such as applying and relating). We evaluate current question generation models on their efficacy for generating follow-up questions, exploring how to generate specific types of follow-up questions based on step-by-step demonstrations. Our results validate FOLLOWUPQG as a challenging benchmark, as model-generated questions are adequate but far from human-raised questions in terms of informativeness and complexity.
In this paper, we explore zero- and few-shot generalization for fact verification (FV), which aims to generalize the FV model trained on well-resourced domains (e.g., Wikipedia) to low-resourced domains that lack human annotations. To this end, we first construct a benchmark dataset collection which contains 11 FV datasets representing 6 domains. We conduct an empirical analysis of generalization across these FV datasets, finding that current models generalize poorly. Our analysis reveals that several factors affect generalization, including dataset size, length of evidence, and the type of claims. Finally, we show that two directions of work improve generalization: 1) incorporating domain knowledge via pretraining on specialized domains, and 2) automatically generating training data via claim generation.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide array of NLP tasks. However, their efficacy is undermined by undesired and inconsistent behaviors, including hallucination, unfaithful reasoning, and toxic content. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is self-correction, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided to fix problems in its own output. Techniques leveraging automated feedback -- either produced by the LLM itself or some external system -- are of particular interest as they are a promising way to make LLM-based solutions more practical and deployable with minimal human feedback. This paper presents a comprehensive review of this emerging class of techniques. We analyze and taxonomize a wide array of recent work utilizing these strategies, including training-time, generation-time, and post-hoc correction. We also summarize the major applications of this strategy and conclude by discussing future directions and challenges.
The field of automatic evaluation of text generation made tremendous progress in the last few years. In particular, since the advent of neural metrics, like COMET, BLEURT, and SEScore2, the newest generation of metrics show a high correlation with human judgment. Unfortunately, quality scores generated with neural metrics are not interpretable, and it is unclear which part of the generation output is criticized by the metrics. To address this limitation, we present INSTRUCTSCORE, an open-source, explainable evaluation metric for text generation. By harnessing both explicit human instruction and the implicit knowledge of GPT4, we fine-tune a LLAMA model to create an evaluative metric that can produce a diagnostic report aligned with human judgment. We evaluate INSTRUCTSCORE on the WMT22 Zh-En translation task, where our 7B model surpasses other LLM-based baselines, including those based on 175B GPT3. Impressively, our INSTRUCTSCORE, even without direct supervision from human-rated data, achieves performance levels on par with state-of-the-art metrics like COMET22, which was fine-tuned on human ratings.
This paper investigates the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of understanding their own knowledge and measuring their uncertainty. We argue this is an important feature for mitigating hallucinations. Specifically, we focus on addressing \textit{known-unknown} questions, characterized by high uncertainty due to the absence of definitive answers. To facilitate our study, we collect a dataset with new Known-Unknown Questions (KUQ) and propose a novel categorization scheme to elucidate the sources of uncertainty. Subsequently, we assess the LLMs' ability to differentiate between known and unknown questions and classify them accordingly. Moreover, we evaluate the quality of their answers in an Open-Ended QA setting. To quantify the uncertainty expressed in the answers, we create a semantic evaluation method that measures the model's accuracy in expressing uncertainty between known vs unknown questions.
Despite the remarkable recent advances in language models, they still struggle with the hallucination problem and can generate misleading and unsupported responses. A common approach to mitigate the hallucination issue is retrieving and incorporating supporting evidence from a knowledge base. However, user questions usually do not align well with the stored knowledge, as they are unaware of the information available before asking questions. This misalignment can limit the language model's ability to locate and utilize the knowledge, potentially forcing it to hallucinate by ignoring or overriding the retrieved evidence. To address this issue, we introduce MixAlign, a framework that interacts with both the user and the knowledge base to obtain and integrate clarifications on how the user question relates to the stored information. MixAlign employs a language model to achieve automatic question-knowledge alignment and, if necessary, further enhances this alignment through human user clarifications. Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods, showcasing the effectiveness of MixAlign in mitigating language model hallucination.