Small Models, Big Tasks: An Exploratory Empirical Study on Small Language Models for Function Calling

Function calling is a complex task with widespread applications in domains such as information retrieval, software engineering and automation. For example, a query to book the shortest flight from New York to London on January 15 requires identifying the correct parameters to generate accurate function calls. Large Language Models (LLMs) can automate this process but are computationally expensive and impractical in resource-constrained settings. In contrast, Small Language Models (SLMs) can operate efficiently, offering faster response times, and lower computational demands, making them potential candidates for function calling on edge devices. In this exploratory empirical study, we evaluate the efficacy of SLMs in generating function calls across diverse domains using zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning approaches, both with and without prompt injection, while also providing the finetuned models to facilitate future applications. Furthermore, we analyze the model responses across a range of metrics, capturing various aspects of function call generation. Additionally, we perform experiments on an edge device to evaluate their performance in terms of latency and memory usage, providing useful insights into their practical applicability. Our findings show that while SLMs improve from zero-shot to few-shot and perform best with fine-tuning, they struggle significantly with adhering to the given output format. Prompt injection experiments further indicate that the models are generally robust and exhibit only a slight decline in performance. While SLMs demonstrate potential for the function call generation task, our results also highlight areas that need further refinement for real-time functioning.

Long-context Non-factoid Question Answering in Indic Languages

Question Answering (QA) tasks, which involve extracting answers from a given context, are relatively straightforward for modern Large Language Models (LLMs) when the context is short. However, long contexts pose challenges due to the quadratic complexity of the self-attention mechanism. This challenge is compounded in Indic languages, which are often low-resource. This study explores context-shortening techniques, including Open Information Extraction (OIE), coreference resolution, Answer Paragraph Selection (APS), and their combinations, to improve QA performance. Compared to the baseline of unshortened (long) contexts, our experiments on four Indic languages (Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu) demonstrate that context-shortening techniques yield an average improvement of 4\% in semantic scores and 47\% in token-level scores when evaluated on three popular LLMs without fine-tuning. Furthermore, with fine-tuning, we achieve an average increase of 2\% in both semantic and token-level scores. Additionally, context-shortening reduces computational overhead. Explainability techniques like LIME and SHAP reveal that when the APS model confidently identifies the paragraph containing the answer, nearly all tokens within the selected text receive high relevance scores. However, the study also highlights the limitations of LLM-based QA systems in addressing non-factoid questions, particularly those requiring reasoning or debate. Moreover, verbalizing OIE-generated triples does not enhance system performance. These findings emphasize the potential of context-shortening techniques to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of LLM-based QA systems, especially for low-resource languages. The source code and resources are available at https://github.com/ritwikmishra/IndicGenQA.

Sometimes the Model doth Preach: Quantifying Religious Bias in Open LLMs through Demographic Analysis in Asian Nations

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating opinions and propagating bias unknowingly, originating from unrepresentative and non-diverse data collection. Prior research has analysed these opinions with respect to the West, particularly the United States. However, insights thus produced may not be generalized in non-Western populations. With the widespread usage of LLM systems by users across several different walks of life, the cultural sensitivity of each generated output is of crucial interest. Our work proposes a novel method that quantitatively analyzes the opinions generated by LLMs, improving on previous work with regards to extracting the social demographics of the models. Our method measures the distance from an LLM's response to survey respondents, through Hamming Distance, to infer the demographic characteristics reflected in the model's outputs. We evaluate modern, open LLMs such as Llama and Mistral on surveys conducted in various global south countries, with a focus on India and other Asian nations, specifically assessing the model's performance on surveys related to religious tolerance and identity. Our analysis reveals that most open LLMs match a single homogeneous profile, varying across different countries/territories, which in turn raises questions about the risks of LLMs promoting a hegemonic worldview, and undermining perspectives of different minorities. Our framework may also be useful for future research investigating the complex intersection between training data, model architecture, and the resulting biases reflected in LLM outputs, particularly concerning sensitive topics like religious tolerance and identity.

Can Language Models Falsify? Evaluating Algorithmic Reasoning with Counterexample Creation

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversight

As Language Model (LM) capabilities advance, evaluating and supervising them at scale is getting harder for humans. There is hope that other language models can automate both these tasks, which we refer to as "AI Oversight". We study how model similarity affects both aspects of AI oversight by proposing a probabilistic metric for LM similarity based on overlap in model mistakes. Using this metric, we first show that LLM-as-a-judge scores favor models similar to the judge, generalizing recent self-preference results. Then, we study training on LM annotations, and find complementary knowledge between the weak supervisor and strong student model plays a crucial role in gains from "weak-to-strong generalization". As model capabilities increase, it becomes harder to find their mistakes, and we might defer more to AI oversight. However, we observe a concerning trend -- model mistakes are becoming more similar with increasing capabilities, pointing to risks from correlated failures. Our work underscores the importance of reporting and correcting for model similarity, especially in the emerging paradigm of AI oversight.

Exploring the Abilities of Large Language Models to Solve Proportional Analogies via Knowledge-Enhanced Prompting

Making analogies is fundamental to cognition. Proportional analogies, which consist of four terms, are often used to assess linguistic and cognitive abilities. For instance, completing analogies like "Oxygen is to Gas as <blank> is to <blank>" requires identifying the semantic relationship (e.g., "type of") between the first pair of terms ("Oxygen" and "Gas") and finding a second pair that shares the same relationship (e.g., "Aluminum" and "Metal"). In this work, we introduce a 15K Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) dataset for proportional analogy completion and evaluate the performance of contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) in various knowledge-enhanced prompt settings. Specifically, we augment prompts with three types of knowledge: exemplar, structured, and targeted. Our results show that despite extensive training data, solving proportional analogies remains challenging for current LLMs, with the best model achieving an accuracy of 55%. Notably, we find that providing targeted knowledge can better assist models in completing proportional analogies compared to providing exemplars or collections of structured knowledge.

A Cognac shot to forget bad memories: Corrective Unlearning in GNNs

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are increasingly being used for a variety of ML applications on graph data. As graph data does not follow the independently and identically distributed (i.i.d) assumption, adversarial manipulations or incorrect data can propagate to other data points through message passing, deteriorating the model's performance. To allow model developers to remove the adverse effects of manipulated entities from a trained GNN, we study the recently formulated problem of Corrective Unlearning. We find that current graph unlearning methods fail to unlearn the effect of manipulations even when the whole manipulated set is known. We introduce a new graph unlearning method, Cognac, which can unlearn the effect of the manipulation set even when only 5% of it is identified. It recovers most of the performance of a strong oracle with fully corrected training data, even beating retraining from scratch without the deletion set while being 8x more efficient. We hope our work guides GNN developers in fixing harmful effects due to issues in real-world data post-training.

Just KIDDIN: Knowledge Infusion and Distillation for Detection of INdecent Memes

Toxicity identification in online multimodal environments remains a challenging task due to the complexity of contextual connections across modalities (e.g., textual and visual). In this paper, we propose a novel framework that integrates Knowledge Distillation (KD) from Large Visual Language Models (LVLMs) and knowledge infusion to enhance the performance of toxicity detection in hateful memes. Our approach extracts sub-knowledge graphs from ConceptNet, a large-scale commonsense Knowledge Graph (KG) to be infused within a compact VLM framework. The relational context between toxic phrases in captions and memes, as well as visual concepts in memes enhance the model's reasoning capabilities. Experimental results from our study on two hate speech benchmark datasets demonstrate superior performance over the state-of-the-art baselines across AU-ROC, F1, and Recall with improvements of 1.1%, 7%, and 35%, respectively. Given the contextual complexity of the toxicity detection task, our approach showcases the significance of learning from both explicit (i.e. KG) as well as implicit (i.e. LVLMs) contextual cues incorporated through a hybrid neurosymbolic approach. This is crucial for real-world applications where accurate and scalable recognition of toxic content is critical for creating safer online environments.

Rethinking Thinking Tokens: Understanding Why They Underperform in Practice

Thinking Tokens (TT) have been proposed as an unsupervised method to facilitate reasoning in language models. However, despite their conceptual appeal, our findings show that TTs marginally improves performance and consistently underperforms compared to Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning across multiple benchmarks. We hypothesize that this underperformance stems from the reliance on a single embedding for TTs, which results in inconsistent learning signals and introduces noisy gradients. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical analysis to validate this hypothesis and discusses the implications for future research on unsupervised reasoning in LLMs.

LLM Vocabulary Compression for Low-Compute Environments

We present a method to compress the final linear layer of language models, reducing memory usage by up to 3.4x without significant performance loss. By grouping tokens based on Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) merges, we prevent materialization of the memory-intensive logits tensor. Evaluations on the TinyStories dataset show that our method performs on par with GPT-Neo and GPT2 while significantly improving throughput by up to 3x, making it suitable for low-compute environments.