Education is being transformed by rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), including emerging Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). Such technology can significantly support academics and students by automating monotonous tasks and making personalised suggestions. However, despite the potential of the technology, there are significant concerns regarding AI misuse, particularly by students in assessments. There are two schools of thought: one advocates for a complete ban on it, while the other views it as a valuable educational tool, provided it is governed by a robust usage policy. This contradiction clearly indicates a major policy gap in academic practices, and new policies are required to uphold academic standards while enabling staff and students to benefit from technological advancements. We surveyed 117 academics from three countries (UK, UAE, and Iraq), and identified that most academics retain positive opinions regarding AI in education. For example, the majority of experienced academics do not favour complete bans, and they see the potential benefits of AI for students, teaching staff, and academic institutions. Importantly, academics specifically identified the particular benefits of AI for autonomous assessment (71.79% of respondents agreed). Therefore, for the first time, we propose a novel AI framework for autonomously evaluating students' work (e.g., reports, coursework, etc.) and automatically assigning grades based on their knowledge and in-depth understanding of the submitted content. The survey results further highlight a significant lack of awareness of modern AI-based tools (e.g., ChatGPT) among experienced academics, a gap that must be addressed to uphold educational standards.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various downstream tasks. However, the high computational and memory requirements of LLMs are a major bottleneck. To address this, parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods such as low-rank adaptation (LoRA) have been proposed to reduce computational costs while ensuring minimal loss in performance. Additionally, knowledge distillation (KD) has been a popular choice for obtaining compact student models from teacher models. In this work, we present KD-LoRA, a novel fine-tuning method that combines LoRA with KD. Our results demonstrate that KD-LoRA achieves performance comparable to full fine-tuning (FFT) and LoRA while significantly reducing resource requirements. Specifically, KD-LoRA retains 98% of LoRA's performance on the GLUE benchmark, while being 40% more compact. Additionally, KD-LoRA reduces GPU memory usage by 30% compared to LoRA, while decreasing inference time by 30% compared to both FFT and LoRA. We evaluate KD-LoRA across three encoder-only models: BERT, RoBERTa, and DeBERTaV3. Code is available at https://github.com/rambodazimi/KD-LoRA.

The disparity in the languages commonly studied in Natural Language Processing (NLP) is typically reflected by referring to languages as low vs high-resourced. However, there is limited consensus on what exactly qualifies as a `low-resource language.' To understand how NLP papers define and study `low resource' languages, we qualitatively analyzed 150 papers from the ACL Anthology and popular speech-processing conferences that mention the keyword `low-resource.' Based on our analysis, we show how several interacting axes contribute to `low-resourcedness' of a language and why that makes it difficult to track progress for each individual language. We hope our work (1) elicits explicit definitions of the terminology when it is used in papers and (2) provides grounding for the different axes to consider when connoting a language as low-resource.

As language models (LMs) become integral to fields like healthcare, law, and journalism, their ability to differentiate between fact, belief, and knowledge is essential for reliable decision-making. Failure to grasp these distinctions can lead to significant consequences in areas such as medical diagnosis, legal judgments, and dissemination of fake news. Despite this, current literature has largely focused on more complex issues such as theory of mind, overlooking more fundamental epistemic challenges. This study systematically evaluates the epistemic reasoning capabilities of modern LMs, including GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3, using a new dataset, KaBLE, consisting of 13,000 questions across 13 tasks. Our results reveal key limitations. First, while LMs achieve 86% accuracy on factual scenarios, their performance drops significantly with false scenarios, particularly in belief-related tasks. Second, LMs struggle with recognizing and affirming personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs contradict factual data, which raises concerns for applications in healthcare and counseling, where engaging with a person's beliefs is critical. Third, we identify a salient bias in how LMs process first-person versus third-person beliefs, performing better on third-person tasks (80.7%) compared to first-person tasks (54.4%). Fourth, LMs lack a robust understanding of the factive nature of knowledge, namely, that knowledge inherently requires truth. Fifth, LMs rely on linguistic cues for fact-checking and sometimes bypass the deeper reasoning. These findings highlight significant concerns about current LMs' ability to reason about truth, belief, and knowledge while emphasizing the need for advancements in these areas before broad deployment in critical sectors.

Class imbalance in training datasets can lead to bias and poor generalization in machine learning models. While pre-processing of training datasets can efficiently address both these issues in centralized learning environments, it is challenging to detect and address these issues in a distributed learning environment such as federated learning. In this paper, we propose FLICKER, a privacy preserving framework to address issues related to global class imbalance in federated learning. At the heart of our contribution lies the popular CKKS homomorphic encryption scheme, which is used by the clients to privately share their data attributes, and subsequently balance their datasets before implementing the FL scheme. Extensive experimental results show that our proposed method significantly improves the FL accuracy numbers when used along with popular datasets and relevant baselines.

In class-incremental learning (class-IL), models must classify all previously seen classes at test time without task-IDs, leading to task confusion. Despite being a key challenge, task confusion lacks a theoretical understanding. We present a novel mathematical framework for class-IL and prove the Infeasibility Theorem, showing optimal class-IL is impossible with discriminative modeling due to task confusion. However, we establish the Feasibility Theorem, demonstrating that generative modeling can achieve optimal class-IL by overcoming task confusion. We then assess popular class-IL strategies, including regularization, bias-correction, replay, and generative classifier, using our framework. Our analysis suggests that adopting generative modeling, either for generative replay or direct classification (generative classifier), is essential for optimal class-IL.

Recently published work on rephrasing natural text data for pre-training LLMs has shown promising results when combining the original dataset with the synthetically rephrased data. We build upon previous work by replicating existing results on C4 and extending them with our optimized rephrasing pipeline to the English, German, Italian, and Spanish Oscar subsets of CulturaX. Our pipeline leads to increased performance on standard evaluation benchmarks in both the mono- and multilingual setup. In addition, we provide a detailed study of our pipeline, investigating the choice of the base dataset and LLM for the rephrasing, as well as the relationship between the model size and the performance after pre-training. By exploring data with different perceived quality levels, we show that gains decrease with higher quality. Furthermore, we find the difference in performance between model families to be bigger than between different model sizes. This highlights the necessity for detailed tests before choosing an LLM to rephrase large amounts of data. Moreover, we investigate the effect of pre-training with synthetic data on supervised fine-tuning. Here, we find increasing but inconclusive results that highly depend on the used benchmark. These results (again) highlight the need for better benchmarking setups. In summary, we show that rephrasing multilingual and low-quality data is a very promising direction to extend LLM pre-training data.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators has garnered significant attention due to their potential to rival human-level evaluations in long-form response assessments. However, current LLM evaluators rely heavily on static, human-defined criteria, limiting their ability to generalize across diverse generative tasks and incorporate context-specific knowledge. In this paper, we propose a novel Self-Assessing LLM framework that integrates Context-Aware Criteria (SALC) with dynamic knowledge tailored to each evaluation instance. This instance-level knowledge enhances the LLM evaluator's performance by providing relevant and context-aware insights that pinpoint the important criteria specific to the current instance. Additionally, the proposed framework adapts seamlessly to various tasks without relying on predefined human criteria, offering a more flexible evaluation approach. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing baseline evaluation frameworks, yielding improvements on average 4.8% across a wide variety of datasets. Furthermore, by leveraging knowledge distillation techniques, we fine-tuned smaller language models for criteria generation and evaluation, achieving comparable or superior performance to larger models with much lower cost. Our method also exhibits a improvement in LC Win-Rate in AlpacaEval2 leaderboard up to a 12% when employed for preference data generation in Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), underscoring its efficacy as a robust and scalable evaluation framework.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has emerged as a promising approach for enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks. Recently, a series of studies attempt to explain the mechanisms underlying CoT, aiming to deepen the understanding of its efficacy. Nevertheless, the existing research faces two major challenges: (1) a lack of quantitative metrics to assess CoT capabilities and (2) a dearth of guidance on optimizing CoT performance. Motivated by this, in this work, we introduce a novel reasoning boundary framework (RBF) to address these challenges. To solve the lack of quantification, we first define a reasoning boundary (RB) to quantify the upper-bound of CoT and establish a combination law for RB, enabling a practical quantitative approach applicable to various real-world CoT tasks. To address the lack of optimization, we propose three categories of RBs. We further optimize these categories with combination laws focused on RB promotion and reasoning path optimization for CoT improvement. Through extensive experiments on 27 models and 5 tasks, the study validates the existence and rationality of the proposed framework. Furthermore, it explains the effectiveness of 10 CoT strategies and guides optimization from two perspectives. We hope this work can provide a comprehensive understanding of the boundaries and optimization strategies for reasoning in LLMs. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/LightChen233/reasoning-boundary.

We revisit the sequential variants of linear regression with the squared loss, classification problems with hinge loss, and logistic regression, all characterized by unbounded losses in the setup where no assumptions are made on the magnitude of design vectors and the norm of the optimal vector of parameters. The key distinction from existing results lies in our assumption that the set of design vectors is known in advance (though their order is not), a setup sometimes referred to as transductive online learning. While this assumption seems similar to fixed design regression or denoising, we demonstrate that the sequential nature of our algorithms allows us to convert our bounds into statistical ones with random design without making any additional assumptions about the distribution of the design vectors--an impossibility for standard denoising results. Our key tools are based on the exponential weights algorithm with carefully chosen transductive (design-dependent) priors, which exploit the full horizon of the design vectors. Our classification regret bounds have a feature that is only attributed to bounded losses in the literature: they depend solely on the dimension of the parameter space and on the number of rounds, independent of the design vectors or the norm of the optimal solution. For linear regression with squared loss, we further extend our analysis to the sparse case, providing sparsity regret bounds that additionally depend on the magnitude of the response variables. We argue that these improved bounds are specific to the transductive setting and unattainable in the worst-case sequential setup. Our algorithms, in several cases, have polynomial time approximations and reduce to sampling with respect to log-concave measures instead of aggregating over hard-to-construct $\varepsilon$-covers of classes.