Playpen: An Environment for Exploring Learning Through Conversational Interaction

Are we running out of learning signal? Predicting the next word in an existing text has turned out to be a powerful signal, at least at scale. But there are signs that we are running out of this resource. In recent months, interaction between learner and feedback-giver has come into focus, both for "alignment" (with a reward model judging the quality of instruction following attempts) and for improving "reasoning" (process- and outcome-based verifiers judging reasoning steps). In this paper, we explore to what extent synthetic interaction in what we call Dialogue Games -- goal-directed and rule-governed activities driven predominantly by verbal actions -- can provide a learning signal, and how this signal can be used. We introduce an environment for producing such interaction data (with the help of a Large Language Model as counterpart to the learner model), both offline and online. We investigate the effects of supervised fine-tuning on this data, as well as reinforcement learning setups such as DPO, and GRPO; showing that all of these approaches achieve some improvements in in-domain games, but only GRPO demonstrates the ability to generalise to out-of-domain games as well as retain competitive performance in reference-based tasks. We release the framework and the baseline training setups in the hope that this can foster research in this promising new direction.

Experiential Semantic Information and Brain Alignment: Are Multimodal Models Better than Language Models?

A common assumption in Computational Linguistics is that text representations learnt by multimodal models are richer and more human-like than those by language-only models, as they are grounded in images or audio -- similar to how human language is grounded in real-world experiences. However, empirical studies checking whether this is true are largely lacking. We address this gap by comparing word representations from contrastive multimodal models vs. language-only ones in the extent to which they capture experiential information -- as defined by an existing norm-based 'experiential model' -- and align with human fMRI responses. Our results indicate that, surprisingly, language-only models are superior to multimodal ones in both respects. Additionally, they learn more unique brain-relevant semantic information beyond that shared with the experiential model. Overall, our study highlights the need to develop computational models that better integrate the complementary semantic information provided by multimodal data sources.

On the Consistency of Multilingual Context Utilization in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated strong performance in multilingual question-answering (QA) tasks by leveraging relevant passages retrieved from corpora. In multilingual RAG (mRAG), the retrieved passages can be written in languages other than that of the query entered by the user, making it challenging for LLMs to effectively utilize the provided information. Recent research suggests that retrieving passages from multilingual corpora can improve RAG performance, particularly for low-resource languages. However, the extent to which LLMs can leverage different kinds of multilingual contexts to generate accurate answers, *independently from retrieval quality*, remains understudied. In this paper, we conduct an extensive assessment of LLMs' ability to (i) make consistent use of a relevant passage regardless of its language, (ii) respond in the expected language, and (iii) focus on the relevant passage even when multiple `distracting' passages in different languages are provided in the context. Our experiments with four LLMs across three QA datasets covering a total of 48 languages reveal a surprising ability of LLMs to extract the relevant information from out-language passages, but a much weaker ability to formulate a full answer in the correct language. Our analysis, based on both accuracy and feature attribution techniques, further shows that distracting passages negatively impact answer quality regardless of their language. However, distractors in the query language exert a slightly stronger influence. Taken together, our findings deepen the understanding of how LLMs utilize context in mRAG systems, providing directions for future improvements.

Triangulating LLM Progress through Benchmarks, Games, and Cognitive Tests

We examine three evaluation paradigms: large question-answering benchmarks (e.g., MMLU and BBH), interactive games (e.g., Signalling Games or Taboo), and cognitive tests (e.g., for working memory or theory of mind). First, we investigate which of the former two-benchmarks or games-is most effective at discriminating LLMs of varying quality. Then, inspired by human cognitive assessments, we compile a suite of targeted tests that measure cognitive abilities deemed essential for effective language use, and we investigate their correlation with model performance in benchmarks and games. Our analyses reveal that interactive games are superior to standard benchmarks in discriminating models. Causal and logical reasoning correlate with both static and interactive tests, while differences emerge regarding core executive functions and social/emotional skills, which correlate more with games. We advocate the development of new interactive benchmarks and targeted cognitive tasks inspired by assessing human abilities but designed specifically for LLMs.

Natural Language Generation from Visual Sequences: Challenges and Future Directions

The ability to use natural language to talk about visual content is at the core of human intelligence and a crucial feature of any artificial intelligence system. Various studies have focused on generating text for single images. In contrast, comparatively little attention has been paid to exhaustively analyzing and advancing work on multiple-image vision-to-text settings. In this position paper, we claim that any task dealing with temporally ordered sequences of multiple images or frames is an instance of a broader, more general problem involving the understanding of intricate relationships between the visual content and the corresponding text. We comprehensively analyze five tasks that are instances of this problem and argue that they pose a common set of challenges and share similarities in terms of modeling and evaluation approaches. Based on the insights from these various aspects and stages of multi-image-to-text generation, we highlight several open questions and suggest future research directions. We believe that these directions can advance the understanding of complex phenomena in this domain and the development of better models.

RACQUET: Unveiling the Dangers of Overlooked Referential Ambiguity in Visual LLMs

Ambiguity resolution is key to effective communication. While humans effortlessly address ambiguity through conversational grounding strategies, the extent to which current language models can emulate these strategies remains unclear. In this work, we examine referential ambiguity in image-based question answering by introducing RACQUET, a carefully curated dataset targeting distinct aspects of ambiguity. Through a series of evaluations, we reveal significant limitations and problems of overconfidence of state-of-the-art large multimodal language models in addressing ambiguity in their responses. The overconfidence issue becomes particularly relevant for RACQUET-BIAS, a subset designed to analyze a critical yet underexplored problem: failing to address ambiguity leads to stereotypical, socially biased responses. Our results underscore the urgency of equipping models with robust strategies to deal with uncertainty without resorting to undesirable stereotypes.

Cross-Lingual Transfer of Debiasing and Detoxification in Multilingual LLMs: An Extensive Investigation

Recent generative large language models (LLMs) show remarkable performance in non-English languages, but when prompted in those languages they tend to express higher harmful social biases and toxicity levels. Prior work has shown that finetuning on specialized datasets can mitigate this behavior, and doing so in English can transfer to other languages. In this work, we investigate the impact of different finetuning methods on the model's bias and toxicity, but also on its ability to produce fluent and diverse text. Our results show that finetuning on curated non-harmful text is more effective for mitigating bias, and finetuning on direct preference optimization (DPO) datasets is more effective for mitigating toxicity. The mitigation caused by applying these methods in English also transfers to non-English languages. We find evidence that the extent to which transfer takes place can be predicted by the amount of data in a given language present in the model's pretraining data. However, this transfer of bias and toxicity mitigation often comes at the expense of decreased language generation ability in non-English languages, highlighting the importance of developing language-specific bias and toxicity mitigation methods.

Modelling Multimodal Integration in Human Concept Processing with Vision-and-Language Models

Representations from deep neural networks (DNNs) have proven remarkably predictive of neural activity involved in both visual and linguistic processing. Despite these successes, most studies to date concern unimodal DNNs, encoding either visual or textual input but not both. Yet, there is growing evidence that human meaning representations integrate linguistic and sensory-motor information. Here we investigate whether the integration of multimodal information operated by current vision-and-language DNN models (VLMs) leads to representations that are more aligned with human brain activity than those obtained by language-only and vision-only DNNs. We focus on fMRI responses recorded while participants read concept words in the context of either a full sentence or an accompanying picture. Our results reveal that VLM representations correlate more strongly than language- and vision-only DNNs with activations in brain areas functionally related to language processing. A comparison between different types of visuo-linguistic architectures shows that recent generative VLMs tend to be less brain-aligned than previous architectures with lower performance on downstream applications. Moreover, through an additional analysis comparing brain vs. behavioural alignment across multiple VLMs, we show that -- with one remarkable exception -- representations that strongly align with behavioural judgments do not correlate highly with brain responses. This indicates that brain similarity does not go hand in hand with behavioural similarity, and vice versa.

Not (yet) the whole story: Evaluating Visual Storytelling Requires More than Measuring Coherence, Grounding, and Repetition

Visual storytelling consists in generating a natural language story given a temporally ordered sequence of images. This task is not only challenging for models, but also very difficult to evaluate with automatic metrics since there is no consensus about what makes a story 'good'. In this paper, we introduce a novel method that measures story quality in terms of human likeness regarding three key aspects highlighted in previous work: visual grounding, coherence, and repetitiveness. We then use this method to evaluate the stories generated by several models, showing that the foundation model LLaVA obtains the best result, but only slightly so compared to TAPM, a 50-times smaller visual storytelling model. Upgrading the visual and language components of TAPM results in a model that yields competitive performance with a relatively low number of parameters. Finally, we carry out a human evaluation study, whose results suggest that a 'good' story may require more than a human-like level of visual grounding, coherence, and repetition.

LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.