Attention Instruction: Amplifying Attention in the Middle via Prompting

The context window of large language models has been extended to 128k tokens or more. However, language models still suffer from position bias and have difficulty in accessing and using the middle part of the context due to the lack of attention. We examine the relative position awareness of LLMs and the feasibility of mitigating disproportional attention through prompting. We augment the original task instruction with $\texttt{attention instructions}$ that direct language models to allocate more attention towards a selected segment of the context. We conduct a comprehensive investigation on multi-document question answering task with both position-based and index-based instructions. We find that language models do not have relative position awareness of the context. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the capacity to adapt attention to a specific segment using matching indexes. Our analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of position bias in LLMs and provides a pathway to mitigate this bias by instruction, thus benefiting LLMs in locating and utilizing relevant information from retrieved documents in RAG applications.

Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.

Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

TopViewRS: Vision-Language Models as Top-View Spatial Reasoners

Top-view perspective denotes a typical way in which humans read and reason over different types of maps, and it is vital for localization and navigation of humans as well as of `non-human' agents, such as the ones backed by large Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Nonetheless, spatial reasoning capabilities of modern VLMs remain unattested and underexplored. In this work, we thus study their capability to understand and reason over spatial relations from the top view. The focus on top view also enables controlled evaluations at different granularity of spatial reasoning; we clearly disentangle different abilities (e.g., recognizing particular objects versus understanding their relative positions). We introduce the TopViewRS (Top-View Reasoning in Space) dataset, consisting of 11,384 multiple-choice questions with either realistic or semantic top-view map as visual input. We then use it to study and evaluate VLMs across 4 perception and reasoning tasks with different levels of complexity. Evaluation of 10 representative open- and closed-source VLMs reveals the gap of more than 50% compared to average human performance, and it is even lower than the random baseline in some cases. Although additional experiments show that Chain-of-Thought reasoning can boost model capabilities by 5.82% on average, the overall performance of VLMs remains limited. Our findings underscore the critical need for enhanced model capability in top-view spatial reasoning and set a foundation for further research towards human-level proficiency of VLMs in real-world multimodal tasks.

LUQ: Long-text Uncertainty Quantification for LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capability in a variety of NLP tasks. Despite their effectiveness, these models are prone to generate nonfactual content. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is pivotal in enhancing our understanding of a model's confidence in its generated content, thereby aiding in the mitigation of nonfactual outputs. Existing research on UQ predominantly targets short text generation, typically yielding brief, word-limited responses. However, real-world applications frequently necessitate much longer responses. Our study first highlights the limitations of current UQ methods in handling long text generation. We then introduce \textsc{Luq}, a novel sampling-based UQ approach specifically designed for long text. Our findings reveal that \textsc{Luq} outperforms existing baseline methods in correlating with the model's factuality scores (negative coefficient of -0.85 observed for Gemini Pro). With \textsc{Luq} as the tool for UQ, we investigate behavior patterns of several popular LLMs' response confidence spectrum and how that interplays with the response' factuality. We identify that LLMs lack confidence in generating long text for rare facts and a factually strong model (i.e. GPT-4) tends to reject questions it is not sure about. To further improve the factual accuracy of LLM responses, we propose a method called \textsc{Luq-Ensemble} that ensembles responses from multiple models and selects the response with the least uncertainty. The ensembling method greatly improves the response factuality upon the best standalone LLM.

Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language use and behavior. In this study, we delve into the intersection of persona variables and the capability of LLMs to simulate different perspectives. We find that persona variables can explain <10\% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets. Nonetheless, incorporating them via prompting in LLMs provides modest improvement. Persona prompting is most effective on data samples where disagreements among annotators are frequent yet confined to a limited range. A linear correlation exists: the more persona variables influence human annotations, the better LLMs predictions are using persona prompting. However, when the utility of persona variables is low (i.e., explaining <10\% of human annotations), persona prompting has little effect. Most subjective NLP datasets fall into this category, casting doubt on simulating diverse perspectives in the current NLP landscape.

TOAD: Task-Oriented Automatic Dialogs with Diverse Response Styles

In light of recent advances in large language models (LLMs), the expectations for the next generation of virtual assistants include enhanced naturalness and adaptability across diverse usage scenarios. However, the creation of high-quality annotated data for Task-Oriented Dialog (TOD) is recognized to be slow and costly. To address these challenges, we introduce Task-Oriented Automatic Dialogs (TOAD), a novel and scalable TOD dataset along with its automatic generation pipeline. The TOAD dataset simulates realistic app context interaction and provide a variety of system response style options. Two aspects of system response styles are considered, verbosity level and users' expression mirroring. We benchmark TOAD on two response generation tasks and the results show that modelling more verbose or responses without user expression mirroring is more challenging.

Unlocking Structure Measuring: Introducing PDD, an Automatic Metric for Positional Discourse Coherence

Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in aligning generated text with user intentions across various tasks. When it comes to long-form text generation, there has been a growing interest in generation from a discourse coherence perspective. However, existing lexical or semantic metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, BertScore cannot effectively capture the discourse coherence. The development of discourse-specific automatic evaluation methods for assessing the output of LLMs warrants greater focus and exploration. In this paper, we present a novel automatic metric designed to quantify the discourse divergence between two long-form articles. Extensive experiments on three datasets from representative domains demonstrate that our metric aligns more closely with human preferences and GPT-4 coherence evaluation, outperforming existing evaluation methods.

Instruct-SCTG: Guiding Sequential Controlled Text Generation through Instructions

Instruction-tuned large language models have shown remarkable performance in aligning generated text with user intentions across various tasks. However, maintaining human-like discourse structure in the generated text remains a challenging research question. In this paper, we propose Instruct-SCTG, a flexible and effective sequential framework that harnesses instruction-tuned language models to generate structurally coherent text in both fine-tuned and zero-shot setups. Our framework generates articles in a section-by-section manner, aligned with the desired human structure using natural language instructions. Furthermore, we introduce a new automatic metric that measures discourse divergence in a fuzzy manner. Extensive experiments on three datasets from representative domains of news and recipes demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our framework in imposing discourse structure during text generation, as verified by both automatic and human evaluation. Our code will be available on Github.