Nudging: Inference-time Alignment via Model Collaboration

Large language models (LLMs) require alignment, such as instruction-tuning or reinforcement learning from human feedback, to effectively and safely follow user instructions. This process necessitates training aligned versions for every model size in each model family, resulting in significant computational overhead. In this work, we propose nudging, a simple, plug-and-play, and training-free algorithm that aligns any base model at inference time using a small aligned model. Nudging is motivated by recent findings that alignment primarily alters the model's behavior on a small subset of stylistic tokens, such as "Sure" or "Thank". We find that base models are significantly more uncertain when generating these tokens. Leveraging this observation, nudging employs a small aligned model to generate nudging tokens to steer the large base model's output toward desired directions when the base model's uncertainty is high. We evaluate the effectiveness of nudging across 3 model families and 13 tasks, covering reasoning, general knowledge, instruction following, and safety benchmarks. Without any additional training, nudging a large base model with a 7x - 14x smaller aligned model achieves zero-shot performance comparable to, and sometimes surpassing, that of large aligned models. For example, nudging OLMo-7b with OLMo-1b-instruct, affecting less than 9% of tokens, achieves a 10% absolute improvement on GSM8K over OLMo-7b-instruct. Unlike prior inference-time tuning methods, nudging enables off-the-shelf collaboration between model families. For instance, nudging Gemma-2-27b with Llama-2-7b-chat outperforms Llama-2-70b-chat on various tasks. Overall, this work introduces a simple yet powerful approach to token-level model collaboration, offering a modular solution to LLM alignment. Our project website: https://fywalter.github.io/nudging/ .

Perceptions of Linguistic Uncertainty by Language Models and Humans

Uncertainty expressions such as ``probably'' or ``highly unlikely'' are pervasive in human language. While prior work has established that there is population-level agreement in terms of how humans interpret these expressions, there has been little inquiry into the abilities of language models to interpret such expressions. In this paper, we investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. Our approach assesses whether language models can employ theory of mind in this setting: understanding the uncertainty of another agent about a particular statement, independently of the model's own certainty about that statement. We evaluate both humans and 10 popular language models on a task created to assess these abilities. Unexpectedly, we find that 8 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. However, we observe systematically different behavior depending on whether a statement is actually true or false. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge (as compared to humans). These findings raise important questions and have broad implications for human-AI alignment and AI-AI communication.

Are Models Biased on Text without Gender-related Language?

Gender bias research has been pivotal in revealing undesirable behaviors in large language models, exposing serious gender stereotypes associated with occupations, and emotions. A key observation in prior work is that models reinforce stereotypes as a consequence of the gendered correlations that are present in the training data. In this paper, we focus on bias where the effect from training data is unclear, and instead address the question: Do language models still exhibit gender bias in non-stereotypical settings? To do so, we introduce UnStereoEval (USE), a novel framework tailored for investigating gender bias in stereotype-free scenarios. USE defines a sentence-level score based on pretraining data statistics to determine if the sentence contain minimal word-gender associations. To systematically benchmark the fairness of popular language models in stereotype-free scenarios, we utilize USE to automatically generate benchmarks without any gender-related language. By leveraging USE's sentence-level score, we also repurpose prior gender bias benchmarks (Winobias and Winogender) for non-stereotypical evaluation. Surprisingly, we find low fairness across all 28 tested models. Concretely, models demonstrate fair behavior in only 9%-41% of stereotype-free sentences, suggesting that bias does not solely stem from the presence of gender-related words. These results raise important questions about where underlying model biases come from and highlight the need for more systematic and comprehensive bias evaluation. We release the full dataset and code at https://ucinlp.github.io/unstereo-eval.

MisgenderMender: A Community-Informed Approach to Interventions for Misgendering

Content Warning: This paper contains examples of misgendering and erasure that could be offensive and potentially triggering. Misgendering, the act of incorrectly addressing someone's gender, inflicts serious harm and is pervasive in everyday technologies, yet there is a notable lack of research to combat it. We are the first to address this lack of research into interventions for misgendering by conducting a survey of gender-diverse individuals in the US to understand perspectives about automated interventions for text-based misgendering. Based on survey insights on the prevalence of misgendering, desired solutions, and associated concerns, we introduce a misgendering interventions task and evaluation dataset, MisgenderMender. We define the task with two sub-tasks: (i) detecting misgendering, followed by (ii) correcting misgendering where misgendering is present in domains where editing is appropriate. MisgenderMender comprises 3790 instances of social media content and LLM-generations about non-cisgender public figures, annotated for the presence of misgendering, with additional annotations for correcting misgendering in LLM-generated text. Using this dataset, we set initial benchmarks by evaluating existing NLP systems and highlighting challenges for future models to address. We release the full dataset, code, and demo at https://tamannahossainkay.github.io/misgendermender/.

Skill Set Optimization: Reinforcing Language Model Behavior via Transferable Skills

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been used for sequential decision making in interactive environments. However, leveraging environment reward signals for continual LLM actor improvement is not straightforward. We propose Skill Set Optimization (SSO) for improving LLM actor performance through constructing and refining sets of transferable skills. SSO constructs skills by extracting common subtrajectories with high rewards and generating subgoals and instructions to represent each skill. These skills are provided to the LLM actor in-context to reinforce behaviors with high rewards. Then, SSO further refines the skill set by pruning skills that do not continue to result in high rewards. We evaluate our method in the classic videogame NetHack and the text environment ScienceWorld to demonstrate SSO's ability to optimize a set of skills and perform in-context policy improvement. SSO outperforms baselines by 40% in our custom NetHack task and outperforms the previous state-of-the-art in ScienceWorld by 35%.

Performance Trade-offs of Watermarking Large Language Models

Amidst growing concerns of large language models (LLMs) being misused for generating misinformation or completing homework assignments, watermarking has emerged as an effective solution for distinguishing human-written and LLM-generated text. A prominent watermarking strategy is to embed a signal into generated text by upsampling a (pseudorandomly-chosen) subset of tokens at every generation step. Although this signal is imperceptible to a human reader, it is detectable through statistical testing. However, implanting such signals alters the model's output distribution and can have unintended effects when watermarked LLMs are used for downstream applications. In this work, we evaluate the performance of watermarked LLMs on a diverse suite of tasks, including text classification, textual entailment, reasoning, question answering, translation, summarization, and language modeling. We find that watermarking has negligible impact on the performance of tasks posed as k-class classification problems in the average case. However, the accuracy can plummet to that of a random classifier for some scenarios (that occur with non-negligible probability). Tasks that are cast as multiple-choice questions and short-form generation are surprisingly unaffected by watermarking. For long-form generation tasks, including summarization and translation, we see a drop of 15-20% in the performance due to watermarking. Our findings highlight the trade-offs that users should be cognizant of when using watermarked models, and point to cases where future research could improve existing trade-offs.

Measuring and Improving Attentiveness to Partial Inputs with Counterfactuals

The inevitable appearance of spurious correlations in training datasets hurts the generalization of NLP models on unseen data. Previous work has found that datasets with paired inputs are prone to correlations between a specific part of the input (e.g., the hypothesis in NLI) and the label; consequently, models trained only on those outperform chance. Are these correlations picked up by models trained on the full input data? To address this question, we propose a new evaluation method, Counterfactual Attentiveness Test (CAT). CAT uses counterfactuals by replacing part of the input with its counterpart from a different example (subject to some restrictions), expecting an attentive model to change its prediction. Using CAT, we systematically investigate established supervised and in-context learning models on ten datasets spanning four tasks: natural language inference, reading comprehension, paraphrase detection, and visual & language reasoning. CAT reveals that reliance on such correlations is mainly data-dependent. Surprisingly, we find that GPT3 becomes less attentive with an increased number of demonstrations, while its accuracy on the test data improves. Our results demonstrate that augmenting training or demonstration data with counterfactuals is effective in improving models' attentiveness. We show that models' attentiveness measured by CAT reveals different conclusions from solely measuring correlations in data.

What's In My Big Data?

Large text corpora are the backbone of language models. However, we have a limited understanding of the content of these corpora, including general statistics, quality, social factors, and inclusion of evaluation data (contamination). In this work, we propose What's In My Big Data? (WIMBD), a platform and a set of sixteen analyses that allow us to reveal and compare the contents of large text corpora. WIMBD builds on two basic capabilities -- count and search -- at scale, which allows us to analyze more than 35 terabytes on a standard compute node. We apply WIMBD to ten different corpora used to train popular language models, including C4, The Pile, and RedPajama. Our analysis uncovers several surprising and previously undocumented findings about these corpora, including the high prevalence of duplicate, synthetic, and low-quality content, personally identifiable information, toxic language, and benchmark contamination. For instance, we find that about 50% of the documents in RedPajama and LAION-2B-en are duplicates. In addition, several datasets used for benchmarking models trained on such corpora are contaminated with respect to important benchmarks, including the Winograd Schema Challenge and parts of GLUE and SuperGLUE. We open-source WIMBD's code and artifacts to provide a standard set of evaluations for new text-based corpora and to encourage more analyses and transparency around them: github.com/allenai/wimbd.

EchoPrompt: Instructing the Model to Rephrase Queries for Improved In-context Learning

Large language models primarily rely on incontext learning to execute tasks. We introduce EchoPrompt, a simple yet effective approach to prompt the model to rephrase its queries before answering them. EchoPrompt is inspired by self-questioning, a cognitive strategy humans use to vocalize queries before providing answers, thereby reducing misconceptions. Experimental results demonstrate that EchoPrompt leads to substantial improvements in both zero-shot and few-shot in-context learning with standard and chain-of-thought prompting on four families of causal language models. These improvements are observed across various numerical reasoning (GSM8K, SVAMP, MultiArith, SingleOp), reading comprehension (DROP, SQuAD), and logical reasoning (Shuffled Objects, Date Understanding, Coin Flipping) tasks. On average, EchoPrompt improves the Zero-shot-CoT performance of code-davinci-002 by 5% in numerical tasks and 13% in reading comprehension tasks. We investigate the effectiveness of EchoPrompt through ablation studies, which reveal the significance of both original and rephrased queries for EchoPrompt's efficacy. Our empirical results show that EchoPrompt is an effective technique that can easily augment in-context learning for better performance.

The Bias Amplification Paradox in Text-to-Image Generation

Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models increase imbalances present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION). However, we discover that amplification can largely be attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while the prompts we use do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently impacts bias measures. Once we account for various distributional differences between texts used for training and generation, we observe that amplification decreases considerably. Our findings illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in models and the data they are trained on, and highlight confounding factors that contribute to bias amplification.