Getting new insights on pre-weaned calf behavioral adaptation to routine challenges (transport, group relocation, etc.) and diseases (respiratory diseases, diarrhea, etc.) is a promising way to improve calf welfare in dairy farms. A classic approach to automatically monitoring behavior is to equip animals with accelerometers attached to neck collars and to develop machine learning models from accelerometer time-series. However, to be used for model development, data must be equipped with labels. Obtaining these labels requires annotating behaviors from direct observation or videos, a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. To address this challenge, we propose the ActBeCalf (Accelerometer Time-Series for Calf Behaviour classification) dataset: 30 pre-weaned dairy calves (Holstein Friesian and Jersey) were equipped with a 3D-accelerometer sensor attached to a neck-collar from one week of birth for 13 weeks. The calves were simultaneously filmed with a camera in each pen. At the end of the trial, behaviors were manually annotated from the videos using the Behavioral Observation Research Interactive Software (BORIS) by 3 observers using an ethogram with 23 behaviors. ActBeCalf contains 27.4 hours of accelerometer data aligned adequately with calf behaviors. The dataset includes the main behaviors, like lying, standing, walking, and running, and less prominent behaviors, such as sniffing, social interaction, and grooming. Finally, ActBeCalf was used for behavior classification with machine learning models: (i)two classes of behaviors, [active and inactive; model 1] and (ii)four classes of behaviors [running, lying, drinking milk, and 'other' class; model 2] to demonstrate its reliability. We got a balanced accuracy of 92% [model1] and 84% [model2]. ActBeCalf is a comprehensive and ready-to-use dataset for classifying pre-weaned calf behaviour from the acceleration time series.

We study two-stage committee elections where voters have dynamic preferences over candidates; at each stage, a committee is chosen under a given voting rule. We are interested in identifying a winning committee for the second stage that overlaps as much as possible with the first-stage committee. We show a full complexity dichotomy for the class of Thiele rules: this problem is tractable for Approval Voting (AV) and hard for all other Thiele rules (including, in particular, Proportional Approval Voting and the Chamberlin-Courant rule). We extend this dichotomy to the greedy variants of Thiele rules. We also explore this problem from a parameterized complexity perspective for several natural parameters. We complement the theory with experimental analysis: e.g., we investigate the average number of changes in the committee as a function of changes in voters' preferences and the role of ties.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

The increasing demand for personalized interactions with large language models (LLMs) calls for methodologies capable of accurately and efficiently identifying user opinions and preferences. Retrieval augmentation emerges as an effective strategy, as it can accommodate a vast number of users without the costs from fine-tuning. Existing research, however, has largely focused on enhancing the retrieval stage and devoted limited exploration toward optimizing the representation of the database, a crucial aspect for tasks such as personalization. In this work, we examine the problem from a novel angle, focusing on how data can be better represented for more data-efficient retrieval in the context of LLM customization. To tackle this challenge, we introduce Persona-DB, a simple yet effective framework consisting of a hierarchical construction process to improve generalization across task contexts and collaborative refinement to effectively bridge knowledge gaps among users. In the evaluation of response prediction, Persona-DB demonstrates superior context efficiency in maintaining accuracy with a significantly reduced retrieval size, a critical advantage in scenarios with extensive histories or limited context windows. Our experiments also indicate a marked improvement of over 10% under cold-start scenarios, when users have extremely sparse data. Furthermore, our analysis reveals the increasing importance of collaborative knowledge as the retrieval capacity expands.

In today's era, where large language models (LLMs) are integrated into numerous real-world applications, ensuring their safety and robustness is crucial for responsible AI usage. Automated red-teaming methods play a key role in this process by generating adversarial attacks to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities in these models. However, existing methods often struggle with slow performance, limited categorical diversity, and high resource demands. While Rainbow Teaming, a recent approach, addresses the diversity challenge by framing adversarial prompt generation as a quality-diversity search, it remains slow and requires a large fine-tuned mutator for optimal performance. To overcome these limitations, we propose Ferret, a novel approach that builds upon Rainbow Teaming by generating multiple adversarial prompt mutations per iteration and using a scoring function to rank and select the most effective adversarial prompt. We explore various scoring functions, including reward models, Llama Guard, and LLM-as-a-judge, to rank adversarial mutations based on their potential harm to improve the efficiency of the search for harmful mutations. Our results demonstrate that Ferret, utilizing a reward model as a scoring function, improves the overall attack success rate (ASR) to 95%, which is 46% higher than Rainbow Teaming. Additionally, Ferret reduces the time needed to achieve a 90% ASR by 15.2% compared to the baseline and generates adversarial prompts that are transferable i.e. effective on other LLMs of larger size. Our codes are available at https://github.com/declare-lab/ferret.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionised the capability of AI models in comprehending and generating natural language text. They are increasingly being used to empower and deploy agents in real-world scenarios, which make decisions and take actions based on their understanding of the context. Therefore researchers, policy makers and enterprises alike are working towards ensuring that the decisions made by these agents align with human values and user expectations. That being said, human values and decisions are not always straightforward to measure and are subject to different cognitive biases. There is a vast section of literature in Behavioural Science which studies biases in human judgements. In this work we report an ongoing investigation on alignment of LLMs with human judgements affected by order bias. Specifically, we focus on a famous human study which showed evidence of order effects in similarity judgements, and replicate it with various popular LLMs. We report the different settings where LLMs exhibit human-like order effect bias and discuss the implications of these findings to inform the design and development of LLM based applications.

In-context learning (ICL) has proven to be a significant capability with the advancement of Large Language models (LLMs). By instructing LLMs using few-shot demonstrative examples, ICL enables them to perform a wide range of tasks without needing to update millions of parameters. This paper presents a unified framework for LLMs that allows them to self-select influential in-context examples to compose their contexts; self-rank candidates with different demonstration compositions; self-optimize the demonstration selection and ordering through reinforcement learning. Specifically, our method designs a parameter-efficient retrieval head that generates the optimized demonstration after training with rewards from LLM's own preference. Experimental results validate the proposed method's effectiveness in enhancing ICL performance. Additionally, our approach effectively identifies and selects the most representative examples for the current task, and includes more diversity in retrieval.

Multimodal Entity Linking (MEL) is a crucial task that aims at linking ambiguous mentions within multimodal contexts to the referent entities in a multimodal knowledge base, such as Wikipedia. Existing methods focus heavily on using complex mechanisms and extensive model tuning methods to model the multimodal interaction on specific datasets. However, these methods overcomplicate the MEL task and overlook the visual semantic information, which makes them costly and hard to scale. Moreover, these methods can not solve the issues like textual ambiguity, redundancy, and noisy images, which severely degrade their performance. Fortunately, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) with robust capabilities in text understanding and reasoning, particularly Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) that can process multimodal inputs, provides new insights into addressing this challenge. However, how to design a universally applicable LLMs-based MEL approach remains a pressing challenge. To this end, we propose UniMEL, a unified framework which establishes a new paradigm to process multimodal entity linking tasks using LLMs. In this framework, we employ LLMs to augment the representation of mentions and entities individually by integrating textual and visual information and refining textual information. Subsequently, we employ the embedding-based method for retrieving and re-ranking candidate entities. Then, with only ~0.26% of the model parameters fine-tuned, LLMs can make the final selection from the candidate entities. Extensive experiments on three public benchmark datasets demonstrate that our solution achieves state-of-the-art performance, and ablation studies verify the effectiveness of all modules. Our code is available at https://github.com/Javkonline/UniMEL.

Artificial intelligence (AI) hiring tools have revolutionized resume screening, and large language models (LLMs) have the potential to do the same. However, given the biases which are embedded within LLMs, it is unclear whether they can be used in this scenario without disadvantaging groups based on their protected attributes. In this work, we investigate the possibilities of using LLMs in a resume screening setting via a document retrieval framework that simulates job candidate selection. Using that framework, we then perform a resume audit study to determine whether a selection of Massive Text Embedding (MTE) models are biased in resume screening scenarios. We simulate this for nine occupations, using a collection of over 500 publicly available resumes and 500 job descriptions. We find that the MTEs are biased, significantly favoring White-associated names in 85.1\% of cases and female-associated names in only 11.1\% of cases, with a minority of cases showing no statistically significant differences. Further analyses show that Black males are disadvantaged in up to 100\% of cases, replicating real-world patterns of bias in employment settings, and validate three hypotheses of intersectionality. We also find an impact of document length as well as the corpus frequency of names in the selection of resumes. These findings have implications for widely used AI tools that are automating employment, fairness, and tech policy.

With the growing complexity of fact verification tasks, the concern with "thoughtful" reasoning capabilities is increasing. However, recent fact verification benchmarks mainly focus on checking a narrow scope of semantic factoids within claims and lack an explicit logical reasoning process. In this paper, we introduce CheckWhy, a challenging dataset tailored to a novel causal fact verification task: checking the truthfulness of the causal relation within claims through rigorous reasoning steps. CheckWhy consists of over 19K "why" claim-evidence-argument structure triplets with supports, refutes, and not enough info labels. Each argument structure is composed of connected evidence, representing the reasoning process that begins with foundational evidence and progresses toward claim establishment. Through extensive experiments on state-of-the-art models, we validate the importance of incorporating the argument structure for causal fact verification. Moreover, the automated and human evaluation of argument structure generation reveals the difficulty in producing satisfying argument structure by fine-tuned models or Chain-of-Thought prompted LLMs, leaving considerable room for future improvements.