Dual use, the intentional, harmful reuse of technology and scientific artefacts, is a problem yet to be well-defined within the context of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, as NLP technologies continue to advance and become increasingly widespread in society, their inner workings have become increasingly opaque. Therefore, understanding dual use concerns and potential ways of limiting them is critical to minimising the potential harms of research and development. In this paper, we conduct a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners to understand the depth and their perspective of the problem as well as to assess existing available support. Based on the results of our survey, we offer a definition of dual use that is tailored to the needs of the NLP community. The survey revealed that a majority of researchers are concerned about the potential dual use of their research but only take limited action toward it. In light of the survey results, we discuss the current state and potential means for mitigating dual use in NLP and propose a checklist that can be integrated into existing conference ethics-frameworks, e.g., the ACL ethics checklist.

Recently, commonsense reasoning in text generation has attracted much attention. Generative commonsense reasoning is the task that requires machines, given a group of keywords, to compose a single coherent sentence with commonsense plausibility. While existing datasets targeting generative commonsense reasoning focus on everyday scenarios, it is unclear how well machines reason under specific geographical and temporal contexts. We formalize this challenging task as SituatedGen, where machines with commonsense should generate a pair of contrastive sentences given a group of keywords including geographical or temporal entities. We introduce a corresponding English dataset consisting of 8,268 contrastive sentence pairs, which are built upon several existing commonsense reasoning benchmarks with minimal manual labor. Experiments show that state-of-the-art generative language models struggle to generate sentences with commonsense plausibility and still lag far behind human performance. Our dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/yunx-z/situated_gen.

A long-standing goal of AI systems is to perform complex multimodal reasoning like humans. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable strides in such multi-step reasoning on the language modality solely by leveraging the chain of thought (CoT) to mimic human thinking. However, the transfer of these advancements to multimodal contexts introduces heightened challenges, including but not limited to the impractical need for labor-intensive annotation and the limitations in terms of flexibility, generalizability, and explainability. To evoke CoT reasoning in multimodality, this work first conducts an in-depth analysis of these challenges posed by multimodality and presents two key insights: "keeping critical thinking" and "letting everyone do their jobs" in multimodal CoT reasoning. Furthermore, this study proposes a novel DDCoT prompting that maintains a critical attitude through negative-space prompting and incorporates multimodality into reasoning by first dividing the reasoning responsibility of LLMs into reasoning and recognition and then integrating the visual recognition capability of visual models into the joint reasoning process. The rationales generated by DDCoT not only improve the reasoning abilities of both large and small language models in zero-shot prompting and fine-tuning learning, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art methods but also exhibit impressive generalizability and explainability.

Language model prompt optimization research has shown that semantically and grammatically well-formed manually crafted prompts are routinely outperformed by automatically generated token sequences with no apparent meaning or syntactic structure, including sequences of vectors from a model's embedding space. We use machine-generated prompts to probe how models respond to input that is not composed of natural language expressions. We study the behavior of models of different sizes in multiple semantic tasks in response to both continuous and discrete machine-generated prompts, and compare it to the behavior in response to human-generated natural-language prompts. Even when producing a similar output, machine-generated and human prompts trigger different response patterns through the network processing pathways, including different perplexities, different attention and output entropy distributions, and different unit activation profiles. We provide preliminary insight into the nature of the units activated by different prompt types, suggesting that only natural language prompts recruit a genuinely linguistic circuit.

Logical reasoning, i.e., deductively inferring the truth value of a conclusion from a set of premises, is an important task for artificial intelligence with wide potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. While many prompting-based strategies have been proposed to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to do such reasoning more effectively, they still appear unsatisfactory, often failing in subtle and unpredictable ways. In this work, we investigate the validity of instead reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC: Logical Inference via Neurosymbolic Computation. In LINC, the LLM acts as a semantic parser, translating premises and conclusions from natural language to expressions in first-order logic. These expressions are then offloaded to an external theorem prover, which symbolically performs deductive inference. Leveraging this approach, we observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate. On ProofWriter, augmenting the comparatively small open-source StarCoder+ (15.5B parameters) with LINC even outperforms GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by an absolute 38% and 10%, respectively. When used with GPT-4, LINC scores 26% higher than CoT on ProofWriter while performing comparatively on FOLIO. Further analysis reveals that although both methods on average succeed roughly equally often on this dataset, they exhibit distinct and complementary failure modes. We thus provide promising evidence for how logical reasoning over natural language can be tackled through jointly leveraging LLMs alongside symbolic provers. All corresponding code is publicly available at https://github.com/benlipkin/linc

Structured knowledge bases (KBs) are an asset for search engines and other applications, but are inevitably incomplete. Language models (LMs) have been proposed for unsupervised knowledge base completion (KBC), yet, their ability to do this at scale and with high accuracy remains an open question. Prior experimental studies mostly fall short because they only evaluate on popular subjects, or sample already existing facts from KBs. In this work, we perform a careful evaluation of GPT's potential to complete the largest public KB: Wikidata. We find that, despite their size and capabilities, models like GPT-3, ChatGPT and GPT-4 do not achieve fully convincing results on this task. Nonetheless, they provide solid improvements over earlier approaches with smaller LMs. In particular, we show that, with proper thresholding, GPT-3 enables to extend Wikidata by 27M facts at 90% precision.

Learning on tabular data underpins numerous real-world applications. Despite considerable efforts in developing effective learning models for tabular data, current transferable tabular models remain in their infancy, limited by either the lack of support for direct instruction following in new tasks or the neglect of acquiring foundational knowledge and capabilities from diverse tabular datasets. In this paper, we propose Tabular Foundation Models (TabFMs) to overcome these limitations. TabFMs harness the potential of generative tabular learning, employing a pre-trained large language model (LLM) as the base model and fine-tuning it using purpose-designed objectives on an extensive range of tabular datasets. This approach endows TabFMs with a profound understanding and universal capabilities essential for learning on tabular data. Our evaluations underscore TabFM's effectiveness: not only does it significantly excel in instruction-following tasks like zero-shot and in-context inference, but it also showcases performance that approaches, and in instances, even transcends, the renowned yet mysterious closed-source LLMs like GPT-4. Furthermore, when fine-tuning with scarce data, our model achieves remarkable efficiency and maintains competitive performance with abundant training data. Finally, while our results are promising, we also delve into TabFM's limitations and potential opportunities, aiming to stimulate and expedite future research on developing more potent TabFMs.

We introduce Inference-Time Intervention (ITI), a technique designed to enhance the "truthfulness" of large language models (LLMs). ITI operates by shifting model activations during inference, following a set of directions across a limited number of attention heads. This intervention significantly improves the performance of LLaMA models on the TruthfulQA benchmark. On an instruction-finetuned LLaMA called Alpaca, ITI improves its truthfulness from 32.5% to 65.1%. We identify a trade-off between truthfulness and helpfulness and demonstrate how to balance it by tuning the intervention strength. ITI is minimally invasive and computationally inexpensive. Moreover, the technique is data efficient: while approaches like RLHF require extensive annotations, ITI locates truthful directions using only few hundred examples. Our findings suggest that LLMs may have an internal representation of the likelihood of something being true, even as they produce falsehoods on the surface.

Both standalone language models (LMs) as well as LMs within downstream-task systems have been shown to generate statements which are factually untrue. This problem is especially severe for low-resource languages, where training data is scarce and of worse quality than for high-resource languages. In this opinion piece, we argue that LMs in their current state will never be fully trustworthy in critical settings and suggest a possible novel strategy to handle this issue: by building LMs such that can cite their sources - i.e., point a user to the parts of their training data that back up their outputs. We first discuss which current NLP tasks would or would not benefit from such models. We then highlight the expected benefits such models would bring, e.g., quick verifiability of statements. We end by outlining the individual tasks that would need to be solved on the way to developing LMs with the ability to cite. We hope to start a discussion about the field's current approach to building LMs, especially for low-resource languages, and the role of the training data in explaining model generations.

Assessment of model fitness is a key part of machine learning. The standard paradigm of model evaluation is analysis of the average loss over future data. This is often explicit in model fitting, where we select models that minimize the average loss over training data as a surrogate, but comes with limited theoretical guarantees. In this paper, we consider the problem of characterizing a batch of out-of-sample losses of a model using a calibration data set. We provide finite-sample limits on the out-of-sample losses that are statistically valid under quite general conditions and propose a diagonistic tool that is simple to compute and interpret. Several numerical experiments are presented to show how the proposed method quantifies the impact of distribution shifts, aids the analysis of regression, and enables model selection as well as hyperparameter tuning.