Advancements in sign language processing have been hindered by a lack of sufficient data, impeding progress in recognition, translation, and production tasks. The absence of comprehensive sign language datasets across the world's sign languages has widened the gap in this field, resulting in a few sign languages being studied more than others, making this research area extremely skewed mostly towards sign languages from high-income countries. In this work we introduce a new large and highly multilingual dataset for sign language translation: JWSign. The dataset consists of 2,530 hours of Bible translations in 98 sign languages, featuring more than 1,500 individual signers. On this dataset, we report neural machine translation experiments. Apart from bilingual baseline systems, we also train multilingual systems, including some that take into account the typological relatedness of signed or spoken languages. Our experiments highlight that multilingual systems are superior to bilingual baselines, and that in higher-resource scenarios, clustering language pairs that are related improves translation quality.

Recent works have identified a gap between research and practice in artificial intelligence security: threats studied in academia do not always reflect the practical use and security risks of AI. For example, while models are often studied in isolation, they form part of larger ML pipelines in practice. Recent works also brought forward that adversarial manipulations introduced by academic attacks are impractical. We take a first step towards describing the full extent of this disparity. To this end, we revisit the threat models of the six most studied attacks in AI security research and match them to AI usage in practice via a survey with \textbf{271} industrial practitioners. On the one hand, we find that all existing threat models are indeed applicable. On the other hand, there are significant mismatches: research is often too generous with the attacker, assuming access to information not frequently available in real-world settings. Our paper is thus a call for action to study more practical threat models in artificial intelligence security.

This paper presents a scholarly Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) that answers bibliographic natural language questions by leveraging a large language model (LLM) in a few-shot manner. The model initially identifies the top-n similar training questions related to a given test question via a BERT-based sentence encoder and retrieves their corresponding SPARQL. Using the top-n similar question-SPARQL pairs as an example and the test question creates a prompt. Then pass the prompt to the LLM and generate a SPARQL. Finally, runs the SPARQL against the underlying KG - ORKG (Open Research KG) endpoint and returns an answer. Our system achieves an F1 score of 99.0%, on SciQA - one of the Scholarly-QALD-23 challenge benchmarks.

The effective assessment of the instruction-following ability of large language models (LLMs) is of paramount importance. A model that cannot adhere to human instructions might be not able to provide reliable and helpful responses. In pursuit of this goal, various benchmarks have been constructed to evaluate the instruction-following capacity of these models. However, these benchmarks are limited to a single language and are constructed using automated approaches, which restricts their applicability and the quality of the test examples they contain. To bridge this gap, we introduce the FollowEval benchmark in this paper. This benchmark is composed of instances in both English and Chinese, and all test examples are crafted by human experts. Furthermore, the FollowEval benchmark is designed to assess LLMs across five critical dimensions of instruction following: string manipulation, commonsense reasoning, logical reasoning, spatial reasoning, and response constraints. To enhance the complexity and present a sufficient challenge, each test example is designed to evaluate more than one dimension. We have evaluated various LLMs using the FollowEval benchmark and found that their performance significantly lags behind that of humans. This highlights the considerable room for improvement in the instruction-following ability of these models.

Despite the progress we have recorded in scaling multilingual machine translation (MT) models and evaluation data to several under-resourced African languages, it is difficult to measure accurately the progress we have made on these languages because evaluation is often performed on n-gram matching metrics like BLEU that often have worse correlation with human judgments. Embedding-based metrics such as COMET correlate better; however, lack of evaluation data with human ratings for under-resourced languages, complexity of annotation guidelines like Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), and limited language coverage of multilingual encoders have hampered their applicability to African languages. In this paper, we address these challenges by creating high-quality human evaluation data with a simplified MQM guideline for error-span annotation and direct assessment (DA) scoring for 13 typologically diverse African languages. Furthermore, we develop AfriCOMET, a COMET evaluation metric for African languages by leveraging DA training data from high-resource languages and African-centric multilingual encoder (AfroXLM-Roberta) to create the state-of-the-art evaluation metric for African languages MT with respect to Spearman-rank correlation with human judgments (+0.406).

Knowledge in the real world is being updated constantly. However, it is costly to frequently update large language models (LLMs). Therefore, it is crucial for LLMs to understand the concept of temporal knowledge. However, prior works on temporal question answering did not emphasize multi-answer and multi-hop types of temporal reasoning. In this paper, we propose a complex temporal question-answering (QA) dataset Complex-TR that focuses on multi-answer and multi-hop temporal reasoning. Besides, we also propose a novel data augmentation strategy to improve the complex temporal reasoning capability and robustness of LLMs. We conducted experiments on multiple temporal QA datasets. Experimental results show that our method is able to improve LLMs' performance on temporal QA benchmarks by significant margins.

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

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with maintaining accuracy across a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps in mathematical reasoning, leading to error propagation that undermines the final result. The current methodology to mitigate this issue primarily involves using a verifier model to assess the correctness of generated solution candidates, focusing either on the overall reasoning path or on an incomplete reasoning path. By rethinking this approach, we argue that assessing potentials of incomplete reasoning paths could be more advantageous as it guides towards correct final answers, transforming the task into a \textit{planning} problem. Our proposed verifier, the Outcome-supervision Value Model (OVM), employs outcome supervision for training, offering an efficient and intuitive method for \textit{planning} by prioritizing steps that lead to accurate conclusions over mere per-step correctness. Furthermore, the OVM eschews the need for labor-intensive annotations on step-level correctness, enhancing its scalability. Our experiments on two multi-step mathematical reasoning datasets, GSM8K and Game of 24, demonstrate the superior performance of the OVM model. Notably, in GSM8K, our \textbf{OVM-7B model achieves state-of-the-art results among LLMs up to 13B parameters}; especially it does not utilize GPT-4 or code execution. These findings offer a novel perspective on the role of outcome supervision in training verifiers for multi-step reasoning tasks and provide theoretical justification for its advantage in value estimation for planning.

Are the longstanding robustness issues in NLP resolved by today's larger and more performant models? To address this question, we conduct a thorough investigation using 19 models of different sizes spanning different architectural choices and pretraining objectives. We conduct evaluations using (a) OOD and challenge test sets, (b) CheckLists, (c) contrast sets, and (d) adversarial inputs. Our analysis reveals that not all OOD tests provide further insight into robustness. Evaluating with CheckLists and contrast sets shows significant gaps in model performance; merely scaling models does not make them sufficiently robust. Finally, we point out that current approaches for adversarial evaluations of models are themselves problematic: they can be easily thwarted, and in their current forms, do not represent a sufficiently deep probe of model robustness. We conclude that not only is the question of robustness in NLP as yet unresolved, but even some of the approaches to measure robustness need to be reassessed.

We explore the creative problem-solving capabilities of modern large language models (LLMs) in a constrained setting. The setting requires circumventing a cognitive bias known in psychology as ''functional fixedness'' to use familiar objects in innovative or unconventional ways. To this end, we create MacGyver, an automatically generated dataset consisting of 1,600 real-world problems that deliberately trigger functional fixedness and require thinking 'out-of-the-box'. We then present our collection of problems to both LLMs and humans to compare and contrast their problem-solving abilities. We show that MacGyver is challenging for both groups, but in unique and complementary ways. For example, humans typically excel in solving problems that they are familiar with but may struggle with tasks requiring domain-specific knowledge, leading to a higher variance. On the other hand, LLMs, being exposed to a variety of highly specialized knowledge, attempt broader problems but are prone to overconfidence and propose actions that are physically infeasible or inefficient. We also provide a detailed error analysis of LLMs, and demonstrate the potential of enhancing their problem-solving ability with novel prompting techniques such as iterative step-wise reflection and divergent-convergent thinking. This work provides insight into the creative problem-solving capabilities of humans and AI and illustrates how psychological paradigms can be extended into large-scale tasks for comparing humans and machines.