Depth estimation from monocular images is pivotal for real-world visual perception systems. While current learning-based depth estimation models train and test on meticulously curated data, they often overlook out-of-distribution (OoD) situations. Yet, in practical settings -- especially safety-critical ones like autonomous driving -- common corruptions can arise. Addressing this oversight, we introduce a comprehensive robustness test suite, RoboDepth, encompassing 18 corruptions spanning three categories: i) weather and lighting conditions; ii) sensor failures and movement; and iii) data processing anomalies. We subsequently benchmark 42 depth estimation models across indoor and outdoor scenes to assess their resilience to these corruptions. Our findings underscore that, in the absence of a dedicated robustness evaluation framework, many leading depth estimation models may be susceptible to typical corruptions. We delve into design considerations for crafting more robust depth estimation models, touching upon pre-training, augmentation, modality, model capacity, and learning paradigms. We anticipate our benchmark will establish a foundational platform for advancing robust OoD depth estimation.

With the rise of prolific ChatGPT, the risk and consequences of AI-generated text has increased alarmingly. To address the inevitable question of ownership attribution for AI-generated artifacts, the US Copyright Office released a statement stating that 'If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it'. Furthermore, both the US and the EU governments have recently drafted their initial proposals regarding the regulatory framework for AI. Given this cynosural spotlight on generative AI, AI-generated text detection (AGTD) has emerged as a topic that has already received immediate attention in research, with some initial methods having been proposed, soon followed by emergence of techniques to bypass detection. This paper introduces the Counter Turing Test (CT^2), a benchmark consisting of techniques aiming to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the robustness of existing AGTD techniques. Our empirical findings unequivocally highlight the fragility of the proposed AGTD methods under scrutiny. Amidst the extensive deliberations on policy-making for regulating AI development, it is of utmost importance to assess the detectability of content generated by LLMs. Thus, to establish a quantifiable spectrum facilitating the evaluation and ranking of LLMs according to their detectability levels, we propose the AI Detectability Index (ADI). We conduct a thorough examination of 15 contemporary LLMs, empirically demonstrating that larger LLMs tend to have a higher ADI, indicating they are less detectable compared to smaller LLMs. We firmly believe that ADI holds significant value as a tool for the wider NLP community, with the potential to serve as a rubric in AI-related policy-making.

Automated dialogue or conversational systems are anthropomorphised by developers and personified by users. While a degree of anthropomorphism may be inevitable due to the choice of medium, conscious and unconscious design choices can guide users to personify such systems to varying degrees. Encouraging users to relate to automated systems as if they were human can lead to high risk scenarios caused by over-reliance on their outputs. As a result, natural language processing researchers have investigated the factors that induce personification and develop resources to mitigate such effects. However, these efforts are fragmented, and many aspects of anthropomorphism have yet to be explored. In this paper, we discuss the linguistic factors that contribute to the anthropomorphism of dialogue systems and the harms that can arise, including reinforcing gender stereotypes and notions of acceptable language. We recommend that future efforts towards developing dialogue systems take particular care in their design, development, release, and description; and attend to the many linguistic cues that can elicit personification by users.

Topic models are one of the compelling methods for discovering latent semantics in a document collection. However, it assumes that a document has sufficient co-occurrence information to be effective. However, in short texts, co-occurrence information is minimal, which results in feature sparsity in document representation. Therefore, existing topic models (probabilistic or neural) mostly fail to mine patterns from them to generate coherent topics. In this paper, we take a new approach to short-text topic modeling to address the data-sparsity issue by extending short text into longer sequences using existing pre-trained language models (PLMs). Besides, we provide a simple solution extending a neural topic model to reduce the effect of noisy out-of-topics text generation from PLMs. We observe that our model can substantially improve the performance of short-text topic modeling. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets under extreme data sparsity scenarios show that our models can generate high-quality topics outperforming state-of-the-art models.

Increases in the deployment of machine learning algorithms for applications that deal with sensitive data have brought attention to the issue of fairness in machine learning. Many works have been devoted to applications that require different demographic groups to be treated fairly. However, algorithms that aim to satisfy inter-group fairness (also called group fairness) may inadvertently treat individuals within the same demographic group unfairly. To address this issue, we introduce a formal definition of within-group fairness that maintains fairness among individuals from within the same group. We propose a pre-processing framework to meet both inter- and within-group fairness criteria with little compromise in accuracy. The framework maps the feature vectors of members from different groups to an inter-group-fair canonical domain before feeding them into a scoring function. The mapping is constructed to preserve the relative relationship between the scores obtained from the unprocessed feature vectors of individuals from the same demographic group, guaranteeing within-group fairness. We apply this framework to the COMPAS risk assessment and Law School datasets and compare its performance in achieving inter-group and within-group fairness to two regularization-based methods.

Recent research at the intersection of AI explainability and fairness has focused on how explanations can improve human-plus-AI task performance as assessed by fairness measures. We propose to characterize what constitutes an explanation that is itself "fair" -- an explanation that does not adversely impact specific populations. We formulate a novel evaluation method of "fair explanations" using not just accuracy and label time, but also psychological impact of explanations on different user groups across many metrics (mental discomfort, stereotype activation, and perceived workload). We apply this method in the context of content moderation of potential hate speech, and its differential impact on Asian vs. non-Asian proxy moderators, across explanation approaches (saliency map and counterfactual explanation). We find that saliency maps generally perform better and show less evidence of disparate impact (group) and individual unfairness than counterfactual explanations. Content warning: This paper contains examples of hate speech and racially discriminatory language. The authors do not support such content. Please consider your risk of discomfort carefully before continuing reading!

With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the dataset(s) they learned from. These questions range from potential bias or misinformation LLMs could retain from their training data to questions of copyright and fair use of human-generated text. However, while these questions emerge, developers of the recent state-of-the-art LLMs become increasingly reluctant to disclose details on their training corpus. We here introduce the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, i.e. inferring whether the LLM has seen a given document during training or not. First, we propose a procedure for the development and evaluation of document-level membership inference for LLMs by leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date. We then propose a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership and instantiate it on OpenLLaMA-7B with both books and academic papers. We show our methodology to perform very well, reaching an impressive AUC of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. We then show our approach to outperform the sentence-level membership inference attacks used in the privacy literature for the document-level membership task. We finally evaluate whether smaller models might be less sensitive to document-level inference and show OpenLLaMA-3B to be approximately as sensitive as OpenLLaMA-7B to our approach. Taken together, our results show that accurate document-level membership can be inferred for LLMs, increasing the transparency of technology poised to change our lives.

Conditional story generation is significant in human-machine interaction, particularly in producing stories with complex plots. While Large language models (LLMs) perform well on multiple NLP tasks, including story generation, it is challenging to generate stories with both complex and creative plots. Existing methods often rely on detailed prompts to guide LLMs to meet target conditions, which inadvertently restrict the creative potential of the generated stories. We argue that leveraging information from exemplary human-written stories facilitates generating more diverse plotlines. Delving deeper into story details helps build complex and credible plots. In this paper, we propose a retrieval-au\textbf{G}mented sto\textbf{R}y generation framework with a f\textbf{O}rest of e\textbf{V}id\textbf{E}nce (GROVE) to enhance stories' complexity. We build a retrieval repository for target conditions to produce few-shot examples to prompt LLMs. Additionally, we design an ``asking-why'' prompting scheme that extracts a forest of evidence, providing compensation for the ambiguities that may occur in the generated story. This iterative process uncovers underlying story backgrounds. Finally, we select the most fitting chains of evidence from the evidence forest and integrate them into the generated story, thereby enhancing the narrative's complexity and credibility. Experimental results and numerous examples verify the effectiveness of our method.

Autonomous agents empowered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have undergone significant improvements, enabling them to generalize across a broad spectrum of tasks. However, in real-world scenarios, cooperation among individuals is often required to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of task accomplishment. Hence, inspired by human group dynamics, we propose a multi-agent framework \framework that can collaboratively and dynamically adjust its composition as a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts system. Our experiments demonstrate that \framework framework can effectively deploy multi-agent groups that outperform a single agent. Furthermore, we delve into the emergence of social behaviors among individual agents within a group during collaborative task accomplishment. In view of these behaviors, we discuss some possible strategies to leverage positive ones and mitigate negative ones for improving the collaborative potential of multi-agent groups. Our codes for \framework will soon be released at \url{https://github.com/OpenBMB/AgentVerse}.

Large language model (LLM) research is dramatically impacting society, making it essential to understand the topics and values it prioritizes, the authors and institutions driving it, and its networks of collaboration. Due to the recent growth of the field, many of these fundamental attributes lack systematic description. We gather, annotate, and analyze a new dataset of 16,979 LLM-related arXiv papers, focusing on changes in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. We show that LLM research increasingly focuses on societal impacts: the Computers and Society sub-arXiv has seen 20x growth in its proportion of LLM-related papers in 2023. This change is driven in part by an influx of new authors: a majority of 2023 papers are first-authored by researchers who have not previously written an LLM-related paper, and these papers focus particularly on applications and societal considerations. While a handful of companies hold outsize influence, academia publishes a much larger fraction of papers than industry overall, and this gap widens in 2023. LLM research is also being shaped by social dynamics: there are gender and academic/industry differences in the topics authors prioritize, and a stark U.S./China schism in the collaboration network. Overall, our analysis documents how LLM research both shapes and is shaped by society, attesting to the necessity of sociotechnical lenses; we discuss implications for researchers and policymakers.