R-Tuning: Teaching Large Language Models to Refuse Unknown Questions

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous domains with their impressive performance but still face their challenges. A predominant issue is the propensity for these models to generate non-existent facts, a concern termed hallucination. Our research is motivated by the observation that previous instruction tuning methods force the model to complete a sentence no matter whether the model knows the knowledge or not. When the question is out of the parametric knowledge, it will try to make up something and fail to indicate when it lacks knowledge. In this paper, we present a new approach called Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (R-Tuning). This approach is formalized by first identifying the knowledge gap between parametric knowledge and the instruction tuning data. Then, we construct the refusal-aware data based on the knowledge intersection, to tune LLMs to refrain from responding to questions beyond its parametric knowledge. Experimental results demonstrate this new instruction tuning approach effectively improves a model's ability to answer known questions and refrain from answering unknown questions. Furthermore, when tested on out-of-domain datasets, the refusal ability was found to be a meta-skill that could be generalized to other tasks. Further analysis surprisingly finds that learning the uncertainty during training displays a better ability to estimate uncertainty than uncertainty-based testing. Our code will be released at https://github.com/shizhediao/R-Tuning.

DRESS: Instructing Large Vision-Language Models to Align and Interact with Humans via Natural Language Feedback

We present DRESS, a large vision language model (LVLM) that innovatively exploits Natural Language feedback (NLF) from Large Language Models to enhance its alignment and interactions by addressing two key limitations in the state-of-the-art LVLMs. First, prior LVLMs generally rely only on the instruction finetuning stage to enhance alignment with human preferences. Without incorporating extra feedback, they are still prone to generate unhelpful, hallucinated, or harmful responses. Second, while the visual instruction tuning data is generally structured in a multi-turn dialogue format, the connections and dependencies among consecutive conversational turns are weak. This reduces the capacity for effective multi-turn interactions. To tackle these, we propose a novel categorization of the NLF into two key types: critique and refinement. The critique NLF identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the responses and is used to align the LVLMs with human preferences. The refinement NLF offers concrete suggestions for improvement and is adopted to improve the interaction ability of the LVLMs-- which focuses on LVLMs' ability to refine responses by incorporating feedback in multi-turn interactions. To address the non-differentiable nature of NLF, we generalize conditional reinforcement learning for training. Our experimental results demonstrate that DRESS can generate more helpful (9.76%), honest (11.52%), and harmless (21.03%) responses, and more effectively learn from feedback during multi-turn interactions compared to SOTA LVMLs.

Prudent Silence or Foolish Babble? Examining Large Language Models' Responses to the Unknown

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle when faced with situations where they lack the prerequisite knowledge to generate a sensical response. In these cases, models tend to fabricate and hallucinate, rather than appropriately signaling uncertainty as humans would. This behavior misaligns with human conversational norms and presents challenges surrounding responsible and ethical AI development. This work aims to systematically investigate LLMs' behaviors in such situations. We curate an adversarial question-answering benchmark containing unanswerable questions targeting information absent from the LLM's training data. Concretely, these unanswerable questions contain non-existent concepts or false premises. When presented with such unanswerable questions, an LLM should appropriately convey uncertainty, and be able to challenge the premise and refuse to generate a response. While facing answerable valid questions, a model should demonstrate a positive correlation between accuracy and confidence. Using a model-agnostic unified confidence elicitation approach, we observe that LLMs that have gone through instruction finetuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) perform significantly better than their counterparts that do not. Moreover, uncertainty expression 1 through our elicitation method does not always stay consistent with the perceived confidence of the direct response of an LLM. Our findings call for further research into teaching LLMs to proactively and reliably express uncertainty.

CRAFT: Customizing LLMs by Creating and Retrieving from Specialized Toolsets

Large language models (LLMs) are often augmented with tools to solve complex tasks. By generating code snippets and executing them through task-specific Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), they can offload certain functions to dedicated external modules, such as image encoding and performing calculations. However, most existing approaches to augment LLMs with tools are constrained by general-purpose APIs and lack the flexibility for tailoring them to specific tasks. In this work, we present CRAFT, a general tool creation and retrieval framework for LLMs. It creates toolsets specifically curated for the tasks and equips LLMs with a component that retrieves tools from these sets to enhance their capability to solve complex tasks. For each task, we collect specific code solutions by prompting GPT-4 to solve the training examples. Following a validation step ensuring the correctness, these solutions are abstracted into code snippets to enhance reusability, and deduplicated for higher quality. At inference time, the language model retrieves snippets from the toolsets and then executes them or generates the output conditioning on the retrieved snippets. Our method is designed to be flexible and offers a plug-and-play approach to adapt off-the-shelf LLMs to unseen domains and modalities, without any finetuning. Experiments on vision-language, tabular processing, and mathematical reasoning tasks show that our approach achieves substantial improvements compared to strong baselines. In addition, our in-depth analysis reveals that: (1) consistent performance improvement can be achieved by scaling up the number of tools and the capability of the backbone models; (2) each component of our approach contributes to the performance gains; (3) the created tools are well-structured and reliable with low complexity and atomicity. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/lifan-yuan/CRAFT}.

MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback

To solve complex tasks, large language models (LLMs) often require multiple rounds of interactions with the user, sometimes assisted by external tools. However, current evaluation paradigms often focus solely on benchmark performance with single-turn exchanges, neglecting the intricate interactions among the user, LLMs, and external tools, creating a discrepancy between benchmark evaluation and real-world use cases. We introduce MINT benchmark to evaluate LLMs' ability to solve tasks with multi-turn interactions by (1) using tools and (2) leveraging natural language feedback. To ensure reproducibility, we provide an evaluation framework where LLMs can access tools by executing Python code and receive natural language feedback from the user simulated with GPT-4. We repurpose a diverse set of established datasets and tasks focusing on reasoning, coding, and decision-making and carefully curate them into a compact subset of instances for efficient evaluation. Our analysis of 20 open- and closed-source LLMs offers intriguing findings. (1) LLMs generally benefit from tool interactions and language feedback, with performance gains (absolute, same below) of 1--8% per additional turn with tool use and 2--17% with natural language feedback. (2) Better single-turn performance does not guarantee better multi-turn performance. (3) Surprisingly, on LLMs we evaluated, we found supervised instruction-finetuning (SIFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) generally hurt multi-turn capabilities. We hope MINT can help measure progress and incentivize research in improving LLMs' capabilities in multi-turn interactions, especially for open-source communities where multi-turn human evaluation has been less accessible compared to commercial LLMs with a larger user base.

Measuring and Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can parse natural queries about the visual content and generate human-like outputs. In this work, we explore the ability of these models to demonstrate human-like reasoning based on the perceived information. To address a crucial concern regarding the extent to which their reasoning capabilities are fully consistent and grounded, we also measure the reasoning consistency of these models. We achieve this by proposing a chain-of-thought (CoT) based consistency measure. However, such an evaluation requires a benchmark that encompasses both high-level inference and detailed reasoning chains, which is costly. We tackle this challenge by proposing a LLM-Human-in-the-Loop pipeline, which notably reduces cost while simultaneously ensuring the generation of a high-quality dataset. Based on this pipeline and the existing coarse-grained annotated dataset, we build the CURE benchmark to measure both the zero-shot reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs, and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency, indicating that substantial efforts are required to enable VLMs to perform visual reasoning as systematically and consistently as humans. As an early step, we propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs. The first stage involves employing supervised fine-tuning of VLMs using step-by-step reasoning samples automatically generated by LLMs. In the second stage, we further augment the training process by incorporating feedback provided by LLMs to produce reasoning chains that are highly consistent and grounded. We empirically highlight the effectiveness of our framework in both reasoning performance and consistency.

Making Pre-trained Language Models both Task-solvers and Self-calibrators

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) serve as backbones for various real-world systems. For high-stake applications, it's equally essential to have reasonable confidence estimations in predictions. While the vanilla confidence scores of PLMs can already be effectively utilized, PLMs consistently become overconfident in their wrong predictions, which is not desirable in practice. Previous work shows that introducing an extra calibration task can mitigate this issue. The basic idea involves acquiring additional data to train models in predicting the confidence of their initial predictions. However, it only demonstrates the feasibility of this kind of method, assuming that there are abundant extra available samples for the introduced calibration task. In this work, we consider the practical scenario that we need to effectively utilize training samples to make PLMs both task-solvers and self-calibrators. Three challenges are presented, including limited training samples, data imbalance, and distribution shifts. We first conduct pilot experiments to quantify various decisive factors in the calibration task. Based on the empirical analysis results, we propose a training algorithm LM-TOAST to tackle the challenges. Experimental results show that LM-TOAST can effectively utilize the training data to make PLMs have reasonable confidence estimations while maintaining the original task performance. Further, we consider three downstream applications, namely selective classification, adversarial defense, and model cascading, to show the practical usefulness of LM-TOAST. The code will be made public at \url{https://github.com/Yangyi-Chen/LM-TOAST}.

Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluations

This paper reexamines the research on out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness in the field of NLP. We find that the distribution shift settings in previous studies commonly lack adequate challenges, hindering the accurate evaluation of OOD robustness. To address these issues, we propose a benchmark construction protocol that ensures clear differentiation and challenging distribution shifts. Then we introduce BOSS, a Benchmark suite for Out-of-distribution robustneSS evaluation covering 5 tasks and 20 datasets. Based on BOSS, we conduct a series of experiments on pre-trained language models for analysis and evaluation of OOD robustness. First, for vanilla fine-tuning, we examine the relationship between in-distribution (ID) and OOD performance. We identify three typical types that unveil the inner learning mechanism, which could potentially facilitate the forecasting of OOD robustness, correlating with the advancements on ID datasets. Then, we evaluate 5 classic methods on BOSS and find that, despite exhibiting some effectiveness in specific cases, they do not offer significant improvement compared to vanilla fine-tuning. Further, we evaluate 5 LLMs with various adaptation paradigms and find that when sufficient ID data is available, fine-tuning domain-specific models outperform LLMs on ID examples significantly. However, in the case of OOD instances, prioritizing LLMs with in-context learning yields better results. We identify that both fine-tuned small models and LLMs face challenges in effectively addressing downstream tasks. The code is public at \url{https://github.com/lifan-yuan/OOD_NLP}.

From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework

Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs. The long-lasting adversarial attack-and-defense arms race in Natural Language Processing (NLP) is algorithm-centric, providing valuable techniques for automatic robustness evaluation. However, the existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples. In this paper, we aim to set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to further exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks. To address the above challenges, we first determine robustness evaluation dimensions based on model capabilities and specify the reasonable algorithm to generate adversarial samples for each dimension. Then we establish the evaluation protocol, including evaluation settings and metrics, under realistic demands. Finally, we use the perturbation degree of adversarial samples to control the sample validity. We implement a toolkit RobTest that realizes our automatic robustness evaluation framework. In our experiments, we conduct a robustness evaluation of RoBERTa models to demonstrate the effectiveness of our evaluation framework, and further show the rationality of each component in the framework. The code will be made public at \url{https://github.com/thunlp/RobTest}.

A Close Look into the Calibration of Pre-trained Language Models

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) achieve remarkable performance on many downstream tasks, but may fail in giving reliable estimates of their predictive uncertainty. Given the lack of a comprehensive understanding of PLMs calibration, we take a close look into this new research problem, aiming to answer two questions: (1) Do PLMs learn to become calibrated in the training process? (2) How effective are existing calibration methods? For the first question, we conduct fine-grained control experiments to study the dynamic change in PLMs' calibration performance in training. We consider six factors as control variables, including dataset difficulty, available training samples, training steps, the number of tunable parameters, model scale, and pretraining. In experiments, we observe a consistent change in calibration performance across six factors. We find that PLMs don't learn to become calibrated in training, evidenced by the continual increase in confidence, no matter the predictions are correct or not. We highlight that our finding presents some contradiction with two established conclusions: (a) Larger PLMs are more calibrated; (b) Pretraining improves model calibration. Next, we study the effectiveness of existing calibration methods in mitigating the overconfidence issue, in both in-distribution and various out-of-distribution settings. Besides unlearnable calibration methods, we adapt two recently proposed learnable methods that directly collect data to train models to have reasonable confidence estimations. Also, we propose extended learnable methods based on existing ones to further improve or maintain PLMs calibration without sacrificing the original task performance. Experimental results show that learnable methods significantly reduce PLMs' confidence in wrong predictions, and our methods exhibit superior performance compared with previous methods.