SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning

Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. However, prompting often leads models to make predictions with lower accuracy compared to finetuning a model with ample training data. On the other hand, while finetuning LLMs on task-specific data generally improves their performance, abundant annotated datasets are not available for all tasks. Previous work has explored generating task-specific data from state-of-the-art LLMs and using this data to finetune smaller models, but this approach requires access to a language model other than the one being trained, which introduces cost, scalability challenges, and legal hurdles associated with continuously relying on more powerful LLMs. In response to these, we propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM, then use these input-output pairs to finetune the student LLM itself. In our empirical evaluation of the Natural Instructions V2 benchmark, we find that SELF-GUIDE improves the performance of LLM by a substantial margin. Specifically, we report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics. This sheds light on the promise of self-synthesized data guiding LLMs towards becoming task-specific experts without any external learning signals.

Synthetic Multimodal Question Generation

Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation (MMRAG) is a powerful approach to question-answering over multimodal documents. A key challenge with evaluating MMRAG is the paucity of high-quality datasets matching the question styles and modalities of interest. In light of this, we propose SMMQG, a synthetic data generation framework. SMMQG leverages interplay between a retriever, large language model (LLM) and large multimodal model (LMM) to generate question and answer pairs directly from multimodal documents, with the questions conforming to specified styles and modalities. We use SMMQG to generate an MMRAG dataset of 1024 questions over Wikipedia documents and evaluate state-of-the-art models using it, revealing insights into model performance that are attainable only through style- and modality-specific evaluation data. Next, we measure the quality of data produced by SMMQG via a human study. We find that the quality of our synthetic data is on par with the quality of the crowdsourced benchmark MMQA and that downstream evaluation results using both datasets strongly concur.

WebCanvas: Benchmarking Web Agents in Online Environments

For web agents to be practically useful, they must adapt to the continuously evolving web environment characterized by frequent updates to user interfaces and content. However, most existing benchmarks only capture the static aspects of the web. To bridge this gap, we introduce WebCanvas, an innovative online evaluation framework for web agents that effectively addresses the dynamic nature of web interactions. WebCanvas contains three main components to facilitate realistic assessments: (1) A novel evaluation metric which reliably capture critical intermediate actions or states necessary for task completions while disregarding noise caused by insignificant events or changed web-elements. (2) A benchmark dataset called Mind2Web-Live, a refined version of original Mind2Web static dataset containing 542 tasks with 2439 intermediate evaluation states; (3) Lightweight and generalizable annotation tools and testing pipelines that enables the community to collect and maintain the high-quality, up-to-date dataset. Building on WebCanvas, we open-source an agent framework with extensible modules for reasoning, providing a foundation for the community to conduct online inference and evaluations. Our best-performing agent achieves a task success rate of 23.1% and a task completion rate of 48.8% on the Mind2Web-Live test set. Additionally, we analyze the performance discrepancies across various websites, domains, and experimental environments. We encourage the community to contribute further insights on online agent evaluation, thereby advancing this field of research.

Beyond Relevance: Evaluate and Improve Retrievers on Perspective Awareness

The task of Information Retrieval (IR) requires a system to identify relevant documents based on users' information needs. In real-world scenarios, retrievers are expected to not only rely on the semantic relevance between the documents and the queries but also recognize the nuanced intents or perspectives behind a user query. For example, when asked to verify a claim, a retrieval system is expected to identify evidence from both supporting vs. contradicting perspectives, for the downstream system to make a fair judgment call. In this work, we study whether retrievers can recognize and respond to different perspectives of the queries -- beyond finding relevant documents for a claim, can retrievers distinguish supporting vs. opposing documents? We reform and extend six existing tasks to create a benchmark for retrieval, where we have diverse perspectives described in free-form text, besides root, neutral queries. We show that current retrievers covered in our experiments have limited awareness of subtly different perspectives in queries and can also be biased toward certain perspectives. Motivated by the observation, we further explore the potential to leverage geometric features of retriever representation space to improve the perspective awareness of retrievers in a zero-shot manner. We demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of our projection-based methods on the same set of tasks. Further analysis also shows how perspective awareness improves performance on various downstream tasks, with 4.2% higher accuracy on AmbigQA and 29.9% more correlation with designated viewpoints on essay writing, compared to non-perspective-aware baselines.

Better Synthetic Data by Retrieving and Transforming Existing Datasets

Despite recent advances in large language models, building dependable and deployable NLP models typically requires abundant, high-quality training data. However, task-specific data is not available for many use cases, and manually curating task-specific data is labor-intensive. Recent work has studied prompt-driven synthetic data generation using large language models, but these generated datasets tend to lack complexity and diversity. To address these limitations, we introduce a method, DataTune, to make better use of existing, publicly available datasets to improve automatic dataset generation. DataTune performs dataset transformation, enabling the repurposing of publicly available datasets into a format that is directly aligned with the specific requirements of target tasks. On a diverse set of language-based tasks from the BIG-Bench benchmark, we find that finetuning language models via DataTune improves over a few-shot prompting baseline by 49% and improves over existing methods that use synthetic or retrieved training data by 34%. We find that dataset transformation significantly increases the diversity and difficulty of generated data on many tasks. We integrate DataTune into an open-source repository to make this method accessible to the community: https://github.com/neulab/prompt2model.

Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy

The leaderboard of Large Language Models (LLMs) in mathematical tasks has been continuously updated. However, the majority of evaluations focus solely on the final results, neglecting the quality of the intermediate steps. This oversight can mask underlying problems, such as logical errors or unnecessary steps in the reasoning process. To measure reasoning beyond final-answer accuracy, we introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps. ReasonEval employs $\textit{validity}$ and $\textit{redundancy}$ to characterize the reasoning quality, as well as accompanying LLMs to assess them automatically. Instantiated by base models that possess strong mathematical knowledge and trained with high-quality labeled data, ReasonEval achieves state-of-the-art performance on human-labeled datasets and can accurately detect different types of errors generated by perturbation. When applied to evaluate LLMs specialized in math, we find that an increase in final-answer accuracy does not necessarily guarantee an improvement in the overall quality of the reasoning steps for challenging mathematical problems. Additionally, we observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection. We release the best-performing model, meta-evaluation script, and all evaluation results at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/ReasonEval.

Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models

For a LLM to be trustworthy, its confidence level should be well-calibrated with its actual performance. While it is now common sense that LLM performances are greatly impacted by prompts, the confidence calibration in prompting LLMs has yet to be thoroughly explored. In this paper, we explore how different prompting strategies influence LLM confidence calibration and how it could be improved. We conduct extensive experiments on six prompting methods in the question-answering context and we observe that, while these methods help improve the expected LLM calibration, they also trigger LLMs to be over-confident when responding to some instances. Inspired by human cognition, we propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. First, FaR elicits the known "facts" that are relevant to the input prompt from the LLM. And then it asks the model to "reflect" over them to generate the final answer. Experiments show that FaR prompting achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Calibration Error by 23.5% on our multi-purpose QA tasks. Notably, FaR prompting even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios, which helps trigger retrieval augmentation for solving these harder instances.

Wikibench: Community-Driven Data Curation for AI Evaluation on Wikipedia

AI tools are increasingly deployed in community contexts. However, datasets used to evaluate AI are typically created by developers and annotators outside a given community, which can yield misleading conclusions about AI performance. How might we empower communities to drive the intentional design and curation of evaluation datasets for AI that impacts them? We investigate this question on Wikipedia, an online community with multiple AI-based content moderation tools deployed. We introduce Wikibench, a system that enables communities to collaboratively curate AI evaluation datasets, while navigating ambiguities and differences in perspective through discussion. A field study on Wikipedia shows that datasets curated using Wikibench can effectively capture community consensus, disagreement, and uncertainty. Furthermore, study participants used Wikibench to shape the overall data curation process, including refining label definitions, determining data inclusion criteria, and authoring data statements. Based on our findings, we propose future directions for systems that support community-driven data curation.

Measuring Adversarial Datasets

In the era of widespread public use of AI systems across various domains, ensuring adversarial robustness has become increasingly vital to maintain safety and prevent undesirable errors. Researchers have curated various adversarial datasets (through perturbations) for capturing model deficiencies that cannot be revealed in standard benchmark datasets. However, little is known about how these adversarial examples differ from the original data points, and there is still no methodology to measure the intended and unintended consequences of those adversarial transformations. In this research, we conducted a systematic survey of existing quantifiable metrics that describe text instances in NLP tasks, among dimensions of difficulty, diversity, and disagreement. We selected several current adversarial effect datasets and compared the distributions between the original and their adversarial counterparts. The results provide valuable insights into what makes these datasets more challenging from a metrics perspective and whether they align with underlying assumptions.

The Data Provenance Initiative: A Large Scale Audit of Dataset Licensing & Attribution in AI

The race to train language models on vast, diverse, and inconsistently documented datasets has raised pressing concerns about the legal and ethical risks for practitioners. To remedy these practices threatening data transparency and understanding, we convene a multi-disciplinary effort between legal and machine learning experts to systematically audit and trace 1800+ text datasets. We develop tools and standards to trace the lineage of these datasets, from their source, creators, series of license conditions, properties, and subsequent use. Our landscape analysis highlights the sharp divides in composition and focus of commercially open vs closed datasets, with closed datasets monopolizing important categories: lower resource languages, more creative tasks, richer topic variety, newer and more synthetic training data. This points to a deepening divide in the types of data that are made available under different license conditions, and heightened implications for jurisdictional legal interpretations of copyright and fair use. We also observe frequent miscategorization of licenses on widely used dataset hosting sites, with license omission of 70%+ and error rates of 50%+. This points to a crisis in misattribution and informed use of the most popular datasets driving many recent breakthroughs. As a contribution to ongoing improvements in dataset transparency and responsible use, we release our entire audit, with an interactive UI, the Data Provenance Explorer, which allows practitioners to trace and filter on data provenance for the most popular open source finetuning data collections: www.dataprovenance.org.