Next-word probabilities from language models have been shown to successfully simulate human reading behavior. Building on this, we show that, interestingly, instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) yield worse psychometric predictive power (PPP) for human reading behavior than base LLMs with equivalent perplexities. In other words, instruction tuning, which helps LLMs provide human-preferred responses, does not always make them human-like from the computational psycholinguistics perspective. In addition, we explore prompting methodologies in simulating human reading behavior with LLMs, showing that prompts reflecting a particular linguistic hypothesis lead LLMs to exhibit better PPP but are still worse than base LLMs. These highlight that recent instruction tuning and prompting do not offer better estimates than direct probability measurements from base LLMs in cognitive modeling.
Recent advancements in the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have paved the way for a myriad of groundbreaking applications in various fields. However, a significant challenge arises as these models often "hallucinate", i.e., fabricate facts without providing users an apparent means to discern the veracity of their statements. Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of LLMs. However, to date, research on UE methods for LLMs has been focused primarily on theoretical rather than engineering contributions. In this work, we tackle this issue by introducing LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. Additionally, it introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores, empowering end-users to discern unreliable responses. LM-Polygraph is compatible with the most recent LLMs, including BLOOMz, LLaMA-2, ChatGPT, and GPT-4, and is designed to support future releases of similarly-styled LMs.
We present Multi-EuP, a new multilingual benchmark dataset, comprising 22K multi-lingual documents collected from the European Parliament, spanning 24 languages. This dataset is designed to investigate fairness in a multilingual information retrieval (IR) context to analyze both language and demographic bias in a ranking context. It boasts an authentic multilingual corpus, featuring topics translated into all 24 languages, as well as cross-lingual relevance judgments. Furthermore, it offers rich demographic information associated with its documents, facilitating the study of demographic bias. We report the effectiveness of Multi-EuP for benchmarking both monolingual and multilingual IR. We also conduct a preliminary experiment on language bias caused by the choice of tokenization strategy.
We investigate MT evaluation metric performance on adversarially-synthesized texts, to shed light on metric robustness. We experiment with word- and character-level attacks on three popular machine translation metrics: BERTScore, BLEURT, and COMET. Our human experiments validate that automatic metrics tend to overpenalize adversarially-degraded translations. We also identify inconsistencies in BERTScore ratings, where it judges the original sentence and the adversarially-degraded one as similar, while judging the degraded translation as notably worse than the original with respect to the reference. We identify patterns of brittleness that motivate more robust metric development.
We propose a new unsupervised lexical simplification method that uses only monolingual data and pre-trained language models. Given a target word and its context, our method generates substitutes based on the target context and also additional contexts sampled from monolingual data. We conduct experiments in English, Portuguese, and Spanish on the TSAR-2022 shared task, and show that our model substantially outperforms other unsupervised systems across all languages. We also establish a new state-of-the-art by ensembling our model with GPT-3.5. Lastly, we evaluate our model on the SWORDS lexical substitution data set, achieving a state-of-the-art result.
The emergence of tools based on Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, and Google's Bard, has garnered immense public attention. These incredibly useful, natural-sounding tools mark significant advances in natural language generation, yet they exhibit a propensity to generate false, erroneous, or misleading content -- commonly referred to as "hallucinations." Moreover, LLMs can be exploited for malicious applications, such as generating false but credible-sounding content and profiles at scale. This poses a significant challenge to society in terms of the potential deception of users and the increasing dissemination of inaccurate information. In light of these risks, we explore the kinds of technological innovations, regulatory reforms, and AI literacy initiatives needed from fact-checkers, news organizations, and the broader research and policy communities. By identifying the risks, the imminent threats, and some viable solutions, we seek to shed light on navigating various aspects of veracity in the era of generative AI.
Large language models have made significant advancements in natural language processing (NLP), exhibiting human performance across various classic NLP tasks. These tasks, however, focus on structure and semantics, and few are designed to assess reasoning abilities and real-world knowledge, which are increasingly vital given that these models are trained on extensive textual data and information. While prior research primarily focuses on English, in this work, we gather a collection of exam problems from primary school to university entrance tests in Indonesia, and evaluate whether large language models can pass the exams. We obtain 14,906 questions across 63 tasks and levels, with 46\% of the questions focusing on assessing proficiency in the Indonesian language and knowledge of nine local languages and cultures in Indonesia. Our empirical evaluations show that GPT-3.5 only manages to pass the Indonesian primary school level, with limited knowledge of the Indonesian local languages and cultures. Other smaller models such as BLOOMZ and Falcon fail the exams.
Large language models (LLMs) are highly adept at question answering and reasoning tasks, but when reasoning in situational context, human expectations vary depending on the relevant cultural common ground. As human languages are associated with diverse cultures, LLMs should also be culturally-diverse reasoners. In this paper, we study the ability of a wide range of state-of-the-art multilingual LLMs (mLLMs) to reason with proverbs and sayings in a conversational context. Our experiments reveal that: (1) mLLMs 'knows' limited proverbs and memorizing proverbs does not mean understanding them within a conversational context; (2) mLLMs struggle to reason with figurative proverbs and sayings, and when asked to select the wrong answer (instead of asking it to select the correct answer); and (3) there is a "culture gap" in mLLMs when reasoning about proverbs and sayings translated from other languages. We construct and release our evaluation dataset MAPS (MulticultrAl Proverbs and Sayings) for proverb understanding with conversational context for six different languages.
The manifestation and effect of bias in news reporting have been central topics in the social sciences for decades, and have received increasing attention in the NLP community recently. While NLP can help to scale up analyses or contribute automatic procedures to investigate the impact of biased news in society, we argue that methodologies that are currently dominant fall short of addressing the complex questions and effects addressed in theoretical media studies. In this survey paper, we review social science approaches and draw a comparison with typical task formulations, methods, and evaluation metrics used in the analysis of media bias in NLP. We discuss open questions and suggest possible directions to close identified gaps between theory and predictive models, and their evaluation. These include model transparency, considering document-external information, and cross-document reasoning rather than single-label assignment.
With the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs), new and hard-to-predict harmful capabilities are emerging. This requires developers to be able to identify risks through the evaluation of "dangerous capabilities" in order to responsibly deploy LLMs. In this work, we collect the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in LLMs, and deploy safer open-source LLMs at a low cost. Our dataset is curated and filtered to consist only of instructions that responsible language models should not follow. We annotate and assess the responses of six popular LLMs to these instructions. Based on our annotation, we proceed to train several BERT-like classifiers, and find that these small classifiers can achieve results that are comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.