Existing studies in backdoor defense have predominantly focused on the training phase, overlooking the critical aspect of testing time defense. This gap becomes particularly pronounced in the context of Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed as Web Services, which typically offer only black-box access, rendering training-time defenses impractical. To bridge this gap, our work introduces defensive demonstrations, an innovative backdoor defense strategy for blackbox large language models. Our method involves identifying the task and retrieving task-relevant demonstrations from an uncontaminated pool. These demonstrations are then combined with user queries and presented to the model during testing, without requiring any modifications/tuning to the black-box model or insights into its internal mechanisms. Defensive demonstrations are designed to counteract the adverse effects of triggers, aiming to recalibrate and correct the behavior of poisoned models during test-time evaluations. Extensive experiments show that defensive demonstrations are effective in defending both instance-level and instruction-level backdoor attacks, not only rectifying the behavior of poisoned models but also surpassing existing baselines in most scenarios.

Fallacies can be used to spread disinformation, fake news, and propaganda, underlining the importance of their detection. Automated detection and classification of fallacies, however, remain challenging, mainly because of the innate subjectivity of the task and the need for a comprehensive, unified approach in existing research. Addressing these limitations, our study introduces a novel taxonomy of fallacies that aligns and refines previous classifications, a new annotation scheme tailored for subjective NLP tasks, and a new evaluation method designed to handle subjectivity, adapted to precision, recall, and F1-Score metrics. Using our annotation scheme, the paper introduces MAFALDA (Multi-level Annotated FALlacy DAtaset), a gold standard dataset. MAFALDA is based on examples from various previously existing fallacy datasets under our unified taxonomy across three levels of granularity. We then evaluate several language models under a zero-shot learning setting using MAFALDA to assess their fallacy detection and classification capability. Our comprehensive evaluation not only benchmarks the performance of these models but also provides valuable insights into their strengths and limitations in addressing fallacious reasoning.

Partially supervised segmentation is a label-saving method based on datasets with fractional classes labeled and intersectant. However, it is still far from landing on real-world medical applications due to privacy concerns and data heterogeneity. As a remedy without privacy leakage, federated partially supervised segmentation (FPSS) is formulated in this work. The main challenges for FPSS are class heterogeneity and client drift. We propose a Unified Federated Partially-labeled Segmentation (UFPS) framework to segment pixels within all classes for partially-annotated datasets by training a totipotential global model without class collision. Our framework includes Unified Label Learning and sparsed Unified Sharpness Aware Minimization for unification of class and feature space, respectively. We find that vanilla combinations for traditional methods in partially supervised segmentation and federated learning are mainly hampered by class collision through empirical study. Our comprehensive experiments on real medical datasets demonstrate better deconflicting and generalization ability of UFPS compared with modified methods.

In this work, we take a first step towards designing summarization systems that are faithful to the author's opinions and perspectives. Focusing on a case study of preserving political perspectives in news summarization, we find that existing approaches alter the political opinions and stances of news articles in more than 50% of summaries, misrepresenting the intent and perspectives of the news authors. We thus propose P^3Sum, a diffusion model-based summarization approach controlled by political perspective classifiers. In P^3Sum, the political leaning of a generated summary is iteratively evaluated at each decoding step, and any drift from the article's original stance incurs a loss back-propagated to the embedding layers, steering the political stance of the summary at inference time. Extensive experiments on three news summarization datasets demonstrate that P^3Sum outperforms state-of-the-art summarization systems and large language models by up to 11.4% in terms of the success rate of stance preservation, with on-par performance on standard summarization utility metrics. These findings highlight the lacunae that even for state-of-the-art models it is still challenging to preserve author perspectives in news summarization, while P^3Sum presents an important first step towards evaluating and developing summarization systems that are faithful to author intent and perspectives.

Journalists must find stories in huge amounts of textual data (e.g. leaks, bills, press releases) as part of their jobs: determining when and why text becomes news can help us understand coverage patterns and help us build assistive tools. Yet, this is challenging because very few labelled links exist, language use between corpora is very different, and text may be covered for a variety of reasons. In this work we focus on news coverage of local public policy in the San Francisco Bay Area by the San Francisco Chronicle. First, we gather news articles, public policy documents and meeting recordings and link them using probabilistic relational modeling, which we show is a low-annotation linking methodology that outperforms other retrieval-based baselines. Second, we define a new task: newsworthiness prediction, to predict if a policy item will get covered. We show that different aspects of public policy discussion yield different newsworthiness signals. Finally we perform human evaluation with expert journalists and show our systems identify policies they consider newsworthy with 68% F1 and our coverage recommendations are helpful with an 84% win-rate.

News media employ moral language to create memorable stories, and readers often engage with the content that align with their values. Moral theories have been applied to news analysis studying moral values in isolation, while the intricate dynamics among participating entities in shaping moral events have been overlooked. This is mainly due to the use of obscure language to conceal evident ideology and values, coupled with the insufficient moral reasoning capability in most existing NLP systems, where LLMs are no exception. To study this phenomenon, we first annotate a new dataset, MORAL EVENTS, consisting of 5,494 structured annotations on 474 news articles by diverse US media across the political spectrum. We further propose MOKA, a moral event extraction framework with MOral Knowledge Augmentation, that leverages knowledge derived from moral words and moral scenarios. Experimental results show that MOKA outperforms competitive baselines across three moral event understanding tasks. Further analyses illuminate the selective reporting of moral events by media outlets of different ideological leanings, suggesting the significance of event-level morality analysis in news. Our datasets and codebase are available at https://github.com/launchnlp/MOKA.

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.

Social media platforms are rife with politically charged discussions. Therefore, accurately deciphering and predicting partisan biases using Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly critical. In this study, we address the challenge of understanding political bias in digitized discourse using LLMs. While traditional approaches often rely on finetuning separate models for each political faction, our work innovates by employing a singular, instruction-tuned LLM to reflect a spectrum of political ideologies. We present a comprehensive analytical framework, consisting of Partisan Bias Divergence Assessment and Partisan Class Tendency Prediction, to evaluate the model's alignment with real-world political ideologies in terms of stances, emotions, and moral foundations. Our findings reveal the model's effectiveness in capturing emotional and moral nuances, albeit with some challenges in stance detection, highlighting the intricacies and potential for refinement in NLP tools for politically sensitive contexts. This research contributes significantly to the field by demonstrating the feasibility and importance of nuanced political understanding in LLMs, particularly for applications requiring acute awareness of political bias.

This study investigates the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate human group dynamics, particularly within politically charged contexts. We replicate the Wisdom of Partisan Crowds phenomenon using LLMs to role-play as Democrat and Republican personas, engaging in a structured interaction akin to human group study. Our approach evaluates how agents' responses evolve through social influence. Our key findings indicate that LLM agents role-playing detailed personas and without Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning closely align with human behaviors, while having CoT reasoning hurts the alignment. However, incorporating explicit biases into agent prompts does not necessarily enhance the wisdom of partisan crowds. Moreover, fine-tuning LLMs with human data shows promise in achieving human-like behavior but poses a risk of overfitting certain behaviors. These findings show the potential and limitations of using LLM agents in modeling human group phenomena.

The inevitable appearance of spurious correlations in training datasets hurts the generalization of NLP models on unseen data. Previous work has found that datasets with paired inputs are prone to correlations between a specific part of the input (e.g., the hypothesis in NLI) and the label; consequently, models trained only on those outperform chance. Are these correlations picked up by models trained on the full input data? To address this question, we propose a new evaluation method, Counterfactual Attentiveness Test (CAT). CAT uses counterfactuals by replacing part of the input with its counterpart from a different example (subject to some restrictions), expecting an attentive model to change its prediction. Using CAT, we systematically investigate established supervised and in-context learning models on ten datasets spanning four tasks: natural language inference, reading comprehension, paraphrase detection, and visual & language reasoning. CAT reveals that reliance on such correlations is mainly data-dependent. Surprisingly, we find that GPT3 becomes less attentive with an increased number of demonstrations, while its accuracy on the test data improves. Our results demonstrate that augmenting training or demonstration data with counterfactuals is effective in improving models' attentiveness. We show that models' attentiveness measured by CAT reveals different conclusions from solely measuring correlations in data.