Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency

Accurately gauging the confidence level of Large Language Models' (LLMs) predictions is pivotal for their reliable application. However, LLMs are often uncalibrated inherently and elude conventional calibration techniques due to their proprietary nature and massive scale. In this work, we explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. We perform an extensive evaluation across various open and closed-source models on nine reasoning datasets. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. Meanwhile, we find that factors such as intermediate explanations, model scaling, and larger sample sizes enhance calibration, while instruction-tuning makes calibration more difficult. Moreover, confidence scores obtained from consistency have the potential to enhance model performance. Finally, we offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.

Competition of Mechanisms: Tracing How Language Models Handle Facts and Counterfactuals

Interpretability research aims to bridge the gap between the empirical success and our scientific understanding of the inner workings of large language models (LLMs). However, most existing research in this area focused on analyzing a single mechanism, such as how models copy or recall factual knowledge. In this work, we propose the formulation of competition of mechanisms, which instead of individual mechanisms focuses on the interplay of multiple mechanisms, and traces how one of them becomes dominant in the final prediction. We uncover how and where the competition of mechanisms happens within LLMs using two interpretability methods, logit inspection and attention modification. Our findings show traces of the mechanisms and their competition across various model components, and reveal attention positions that effectively control the strength of certain mechanisms. Our code and data are at https://github.com/francescortu/Competition_of_Mechanisms.

AFaCTA: Assisting the Annotation of Factual Claim Detection with Reliable LLM Annotators

With the rise of generative AI, automated fact-checking methods to combat misinformation are becoming more and more important. However, factual claim detection, the first step in a fact-checking pipeline, suffers from two key issues that limit its scalability and generalizability: (1) inconsistency in definitions of the task and what a claim is, and (2) the high cost of manual annotation. To address (1), we review the definitions in related work and propose a unifying definition of factual claims that focuses on verifiability. To address (2), we introduce AFaCTA (Automatic Factual Claim deTection Annotator), a novel framework that assists in the annotation of factual claims with the help of large language models (LLMs). AFaCTA calibrates its annotation confidence with consistency along three predefined reasoning paths. Extensive evaluation and experiments in the domain of political speech reveal that AFaCTA can efficiently assist experts in annotating factual claims and training high-quality classifiers, and can work with or without expert supervision. Our analyses also result in PoliClaim, a comprehensive claim detection dataset spanning diverse political topics.

Do Language Models Exhibit the Same Cognitive Biases in Problem Solving as Human Learners?

There is increasing interest in employing large language models (LLMs) as cognitive models. For such purposes, it is central to understand which cognitive properties are well-modeled by LLMs, and which are not. In this work, we study the biases of LLMs in relation to those known in children when solving arithmetic word problems. Surveying the learning science literature, we posit that the problem-solving process can be split into three distinct steps: text comprehension, solution planning and solution execution. We construct tests for each one in order to understand which parts of this process can be faithfully modeled by current state-of-the-art LLMs. We generate a novel set of word problems for each of these tests, using a neuro-symbolic method that enables fine-grained control over the problem features. We find evidence that LLMs, with and without instruction-tuning, exhibit human-like biases in both the text-comprehension and the solution-planning steps of the solving process, but not during the final step which relies on the problem's arithmetic expressions (solution execution).

CLadder: A Benchmark to Assess Causal Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models

The ability to perform causal reasoning is widely considered a core feature of intelligence. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can coherently reason about causality. Much of the existing work in natural language processing (NLP) focuses on evaluating commonsense causal reasoning in LLMs, thus failing to assess whether a model can perform causal inference in accordance with a set of well-defined formal rules. To address this, we propose a new NLP task, causal inference in natural language, inspired by the "causal inference engine" postulated by Judea Pearl et al. We compose a large dataset, CLadder, with 10K samples: based on a collection of causal graphs and queries (associational, interventional, and counterfactual), we obtain symbolic questions and ground-truth answers, through an oracle causal inference engine. These are then translated into natural language. We evaluate multiple LLMs on our dataset, and we introduce and evaluate a bespoke chain-of-thought prompting strategy, CausalCoT. We show that our task is highly challenging for LLMs, and we conduct an in-depth analysis to gain deeper insight into the causal reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our data is open-sourced at https://huggingface.co/datasets/causalNLP/cladder, and our code can be found at https://github.com/causalNLP/cladder.

RELIC: Investigating Large Language Model Responses using Self-Consistency

Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for blending fact with fiction and generating non-factual content, known as hallucinations. To tackle this challenge, we propose an interactive system that helps users obtain insights into the reliability of the generated text. Our approach is based on the idea that the self-consistency of multiple samples generated by the same LLM relates to its confidence in individual claims in the generated texts. Using this idea, we design RELIC, an interactive system that enables users to investigate and verify semantic-level variations in multiple long-form responses. This allows users to recognize potentially inaccurate information in the generated text and make necessary corrections. From a user study with ten participants, we demonstrate that our approach helps users better verify the reliability of the generated text. We further summarize the design implications and lessons learned from this research for inspiring future studies on reliable human-LLM interactions.

Navigating the Ocean of Biases: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Causal Structures

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked intense debate regarding their ability to perceive and interpret complex socio-political landscapes. In this study, we undertake an exploration of decision-making processes and inherent biases within LLMs, exemplified by ChatGPT, specifically contextualizing our analysis within political debates. We aim not to critique or validate LLMs' values, but rather to discern how they interpret and adjudicate "good arguments." By applying Activity Dependency Networks (ADNs), we extract the LLMs' implicit criteria for such assessments and illustrate how normative values influence these perceptions. We discuss the consequences of our findings for human-AI alignment and bias mitigation. Our code and data at https://github.com/david-jenny/LLM-Political-Study.

The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative abilities, but can they judge the quality of their own generations? A popular concept, referred to as self-refinement, postulates that LLMs can detect and correct the errors in their generations when asked to do so. However, recent empirical evidence points in the opposite direction, suggesting that LLMs often struggle to accurately identify errors when reasoning is involved. To address this, we propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust, which asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output, and either affirm or withhold trust in its refinement by ranking the refinement and the initial prediction. On two multistep reasoning tasks of mathematical word problems (GSM8K) and question answering (StrategyQA), ART achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines, while using a much smaller model as the decision maker. We also demonstrate the benefit of using smaller models to make refinement decisions as a cost-effective alternative to fine-tuning a larger model.

CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations

Evaluating the significance of a paper is pivotal yet challenging for the scientific community. While the citation count is the most commonly used proxy for this purpose, they are widely criticized for failing to accurately reflect a paper's true impact. In this work, we propose a causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. Specifically, we encode each paper using the text embeddings by large language models (LLMs), extract similar samples by cosine similarity, and synthesize a counterfactual sample by the weighted average of similar papers according to their similarity values. We apply the resulting metric, called CausalCite, as a causal formulation of paper citations. We show its effectiveness on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts on a previous dataset of 1K papers, (test-of-time) awards for past papers, and its stability across various sub-fields of AI. We also provide a set of findings that can serve as suggested ways for future researchers to use our metric for a better understanding of a paper's quality. Our code and data are at https://github.com/causalNLP/causal-cite.

Towards a Mechanistic Interpretation of Multi-Step Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models

Recent work has shown that language models (LMs) have strong multi-step (i.e., procedural) reasoning capabilities. However, it is unclear whether LMs perform these tasks by cheating with answers memorized from pretraining corpus, or, via a multi-step reasoning mechanism. In this paper, we try to answer this question by exploring a mechanistic interpretation of LMs for multi-step reasoning tasks. Concretely, we hypothesize that the LM implicitly embeds a reasoning tree resembling the correct reasoning process within it. We test this hypothesis by introducing a new probing approach (called MechanisticProbe) that recovers the reasoning tree from the model's attention patterns. We use our probe to analyze two LMs: GPT-2 on a synthetic task (k-th smallest element), and LLaMA on two simple language-based reasoning tasks (ProofWriter & AI2 Reasoning Challenge). We show that MechanisticProbe is able to detect the information of the reasoning tree from the model's attentions for most examples, suggesting that the LM indeed is going through a process of multi-step reasoning within its architecture in many cases.