Generative query rewrite generates reconstructed query rewrites using the conversation history while rely heavily on gold rewrite pairs that are expensive to obtain. Recently, few-shot learning is gaining increasing popularity for this task, whereas these methods are sensitive to the inherent noise due to limited data size. Besides, both attempts face performance degradation when there exists language style shift between training and testing cases. To this end, we study low-resource generative conversational query rewrite that is robust to both noise and language style shift. The core idea is to utilize massive unlabeled data to make further improvements via a contrastive co-training paradigm. Specifically, we co-train two dual models (namely Rewriter and Simplifier) such that each of them provides extra guidance through pseudo-labeling for enhancing the other in an iterative manner. We also leverage contrastive learning with data augmentation, which enables our model pay more attention on the truly valuable information than the noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our model under both few-shot and zero-shot scenarios. We also verify the better generalization ability of our model when encountering language style shift.
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought about remarkable capabilities in natural language processing but also raised concerns about their potential misuse. While strategies like supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback have enhanced their safety, these methods primarily focus on natural languages, which may not generalize to other domains. This paper introduces CodeAttack, a framework that transforms natural language inputs into code inputs, presenting a novel environment for testing the safety generalization of LLMs. Our comprehensive studies on state-of-the-art LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-2, and Llama-2 series reveal a common safety vulnerability of these models against code input: CodeAttack consistently bypasses the safety guardrails of all models more than 80% of the time. Furthermore, we find that a larger distribution gap between CodeAttack and natural language leads to weaker safety generalization, such as encoding natural language input with data structures or using less popular programming languages. These findings highlight new safety risks in the code domain and the need for more robust safety alignment algorithms to match the code capabilities of LLMs.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional multitasking abilities, fine-tuning these models on downstream, domain-specific datasets is often necessary to yield superior performance on test sets compared to their counterparts without fine-tuning. However, the comprehensive effects of fine-tuning on the LLMs' generalization ability are not fully understood. This paper delves into the differences between original, unmodified LLMs and their fine-tuned variants. Our primary investigation centers on whether fine-tuning affects the generalization ability intrinsic to LLMs. To elaborate on this, we conduct extensive experiments across five distinct language tasks on various datasets. Our main findings reveal that models fine-tuned on generation and classification tasks exhibit dissimilar behaviors in generalizing to different domains and tasks. Intriguingly, we observe that integrating the in-context learning strategy during fine-tuning on generation tasks can enhance the model's generalization ability. Through this systematic investigation, we aim to contribute valuable insights into the evolving landscape of fine-tuning practices for LLMs.
As the typical retraining paradigm is unacceptably time- and resource-consuming, researchers are turning to model editing in order to seek an effective, consecutive, and batch-supportive way to edit the model behavior directly. Despite all these practical expectations, existing model editing methods fail to realize all of them. Furthermore, the memory demands for such succession-supportive model editing approaches tend to be prohibitive, frequently necessitating an external memory that grows incrementally over time. To cope with these challenges, we propose COMEBA-HK, a model editing method that is both consecutive and batch-supportive. COMEBA-HK is memory-friendly as it only needs a small amount of it to store several hook layers with updated weights. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our method over other batch-supportive model editing methods under both single-round and consecutive batch editing scenarios. Extensive analyses of COMEBA-HK have been conducted to verify the stability of our method over 1) the number of consecutive steps and 2) the number of editing instance.
We introduce Generalized Instruction Tuning (called GLAN), a general and scalable method for instruction tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs). Unlike prior work that relies on seed examples or existing datasets to construct instruction tuning data, GLAN exclusively utilizes a pre-curated taxonomy of human knowledge and capabilities as input and generates large-scale synthetic instruction data across all disciplines. Specifically, inspired by the systematic structure in human education system, we build the taxonomy by decomposing human knowledge and capabilities to various fields, sub-fields and ultimately, distinct disciplines semi-automatically, facilitated by LLMs. Subsequently, we generate a comprehensive list of subjects for every discipline and proceed to design a syllabus tailored to each subject, again utilizing LLMs. With the fine-grained key concepts detailed in every class session of the syllabus, we are able to generate diverse instructions with a broad coverage across the entire spectrum of human knowledge and skills. Extensive experiments on large language models (e.g., Mistral) demonstrate that GLAN excels in multiple dimensions from mathematical reasoning, coding, academic exams, logical reasoning to general instruction following without using task-specific training data of these tasks. In addition, GLAN allows for easy customization and new fields or skills can be added by simply incorporating a new node into our taxonomy.
In mixed-initiative conversational search systems, clarifying questions are used to help users who struggle to express their intentions in a single query. These questions aim to uncover user's information needs and resolve query ambiguities. We hypothesize that in scenarios where multimodal information is pertinent, the clarification process can be improved by using non-textual information. Therefore, we propose to add images to clarifying questions and formulate the novel task of asking multimodal clarifying questions in open-domain, mixed-initiative conversational search systems. To facilitate research into this task, we collect a dataset named Melon that contains over 4k multimodal clarifying questions, enriched with over 14k images. We also propose a multimodal query clarification model named Marto and adopt a prompt-based, generative fine-tuning strategy to perform the training of different stages with different prompts. Several analyses are conducted to understand the importance of multimodal contents during the query clarification phase. Experimental results indicate that the addition of images leads to significant improvements of up to 90% in retrieval performance when selecting the relevant images. Extensive analyses are also performed to show the superiority of Marto compared with discriminative baselines in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.
Decoding methods play an indispensable role in converting language models from next-token predictors into practical task solvers. Prior research on decoding methods, primarily focusing on task-specific models, may not extend to the current era of general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Moreover, the recent influx of decoding strategies has further complicated this landscape. This paper provides a comprehensive and multifaceted analysis of various decoding methods within the context of LLMs, evaluating their performance, robustness to hyperparameter changes, and decoding speeds across a wide range of tasks, models, and deployment environments. Our findings reveal that decoding method performance is notably task-dependent and influenced by factors such as alignment, model size, and quantization. Intriguingly, sensitivity analysis exposes that certain methods achieve superior performance at the cost of extensive hyperparameter tuning, highlighting the trade-off between attaining optimal results and the practicality of implementation in varying contexts.
As humans, we consistently engage in interactions with our peers and receive feedback in the form of natural language. This language feedback allows us to reflect on our actions, maintain appropriate behavior, and rectify our errors. The question arises naturally: can we use language feedback to align large language models (LLMs)? In contrast to previous research that aligns LLMs with reward or preference data, we present the first systematic exploration of alignment through the lens of language feedback (i.e., judgment). We commence with an in-depth investigation of potential methods that can be adapted for aligning LLMs with judgments, revealing that these methods are unable to fully capitalize on the judgments. To facilitate more effective utilization of judgments, we propose a novel framework, Contrastive Unlikelihood Training (CUT), that allows for fine-grained inappropriate content detection and correction based on judgments. Our offline alignment results show that, with merely 1317 off-the-shelf judgment data, CUT (LLaMA2-13b) can beat the 175B DaVinci003 and surpass the best baseline by 52.34 points on AlpacaEval. The online alignment results demonstrate that CUT can align LLMs (LLaMA2-chat-13b) in an iterative fashion using model-specific judgment data, with a steady performance improvement from 81.09 to 91.36 points on AlpacaEval. Our analysis further suggests that judgments exhibit greater potential than rewards for LLM alignment and warrant future research.
Though prompting LLMs with various reasoning structures produces reasoning proofs along with answers, these proofs are not ensured to be causal and reliable due to the inherent defects of LLMs. Tracking such deficiencies, we present a neuro-symbolic integration method, in which a neural LLM is used to represent the knowledge of the problem while an LLM-free symbolic solver is adopted to do deliberative reasoning using the knowledge. Specifically, our customized meta-interpreters allow the production of reasoning proofs and support flexible search strategies. These reasoning proofs are ensured to be causal and reliable because of the deterministic executing nature of the symbolic solvers. Empirically, on ProofWriter, our method surpasses the CoT baseline by nearly double in accuracy and more than triple in proof similarity. On GSM8K, our method also shows accuracy improvements and nearly doubled proof similarity. Our code is released at https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/CaRing
Most existing chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting methods suffer from the issues of generalizability and consistency, as they often rely on instance-specific solutions that may not be applicable to other cases and lack task-level consistency in their reasoning steps. To address these limitations, we propose a comprehensive framework, StrategyLLM, harnessing the capabilities of LLMs to tackle various tasks. The framework improves generalizability by formulating general problem-solving strategies and enhances consistency by producing consistent solutions using these strategies. StrategyLLM employs four LLM-based agents: strategy generator, executor, optimizer, and evaluator, working together to generate, evaluate, and select promising strategies for a given task automatically. The experimental results demonstrate that StrategyLLM outperforms the competitive baseline CoT-SC that requires human-annotated solutions on 13 datasets across 4 challenging tasks without human involvement, including math reasoning (39.2% $\rightarrow$ 43.3%), commonsense reasoning (70.3% $\rightarrow$ 72.5%), algorithmic reasoning (51.7% $\rightarrow$ 62.0%), and symbolic reasoning (30.0% $\rightarrow$ 79.2%).