New Natural Langauge Process (NLP) benchmarks are urgently needed to align with the rapid development of large language models (LLMs). We present Xiezhi, the most comprehensive evaluation suite designed to assess holistic domain knowledge. Xiezhi comprises multiple-choice questions across 516 diverse disciplines ranging from 13 different subjects with 249,587 questions and accompanied by Xiezhi-Specialty and Xiezhi-Interdiscipline, both with 15k questions. We conduct evaluation of the 47 cutting-edge LLMs on Xiezhi. Results indicate that LLMs exceed average performance of humans in science, engineering, agronomy, medicine, and art, but fall short in economics, jurisprudence, pedagogy, literature, history, and management.

Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at https://inversescaling.com/data to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.

This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (\textsf{FFB}), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. Ensuring fairness in machine learning is critical for ethical and legal compliance. However, there exist challenges in comparing and developing of fairness methods due to inconsistencies in experimental settings, lack of accessible algorithmic implementations, and limited extensibility of current fairness packages and tools. To address these issues, we introduce an open-source, standardized benchmark for evaluating in-processing group fairness methods and provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness. This work offers the following key contributions: the provision of flexible, extensible, minimalistic, and research-oriented open-source code; the establishment of unified fairness method benchmarking pipelines; and extensive benchmarking, which yields key insights from $\mathbf{45,079}$ experiments. We believe our work will significantly facilitate the growth and development of the fairness research community. The benchmark, including code and running logs, is available at https://github.com/ahxt/fair_fairness_benchmark

We describe some recent approaches to score-based explanations for query answers in databases. The focus is on work done by the author and collaborators. Special emphasis is placed on the use of counterfactual reasoning for score specification and computation. Several examples that illustrate the flexibility of these methods are shown.

The wide applicability and adaptability of generative large language models (LLMs) has enabled their rapid adoption. While the pre-trained models can perform many tasks, such models are often fine-tuned to improve their performance on various downstream applications. However, this leads to issues over violation of model licenses, model theft, and copyright infringement. Moreover, recent advances show that generative technology is capable of producing harmful content which exacerbates the problems of accountability within model supply chains. Thus, we need a method to investigate how a model was trained or a piece of text was generated and what their pre-trained base model was. In this paper we take the first step to address this open problem by tracing back the origin of a given fine-tuned LLM to its corresponding pre-trained base model. We consider different knowledge levels and attribution strategies, and find that we can correctly trace back 8 out of the 10 fine tuned models with our best method.

As the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, evaluating their performance becomes increasingly crucial and challenging. This paper aims to bridge this gap by introducing CMMLU, a comprehensive Chinese benchmark that covers various subjects, including natural science, social sciences, engineering, and humanities. We conduct a thorough evaluation of 18 advanced multilingual- and Chinese-oriented LLMs, assessing their performance across different subjects and settings. The results reveal that most existing LLMs struggle to achieve an average accuracy of 50%, even when provided with in-context examples and chain-of-thought prompts, whereas the random baseline stands at 25%. This highlights significant room for improvement in LLMs. Additionally, we conduct extensive experiments to identify factors impacting the models' performance and propose directions for enhancing LLMs. CMMLU fills the gap in evaluating the knowledge and reasoning capabilities of large language models within the Chinese context.

In this study, we use recent stance detection methods to study the stance (for, against or neutral) of statements in official information booklets for voters. Our main goal is to answer the fundamental question: are topics to be voted on presented in a neutral way? To this end, we first train and compare several models for stance detection on a large dataset about Swiss politics. We find that fine-tuning an M-BERT model leads to the best accuracy. We then use our best model to analyze the stance of utterances extracted from the Swiss federal voting booklet concerning the Swiss popular votes of September 2022, which is the main goal of this project. We evaluated the models in both a multilingual as well as a monolingual context for German, French, and Italian. Our analysis shows that some issues are heavily favored while others are more balanced, and that the results are largely consistent across languages. Our findings have implications for the editorial process of future voting booklets and the design of better automated systems for analyzing political discourse.

Collaborative-learning based recommender systems emerged following the success of collaborative learning techniques such as Federated Learning (FL) and Gossip Learning (GL). In these systems, users participate in the training of a recommender system while keeping their history of consumed items on their devices. While these solutions seemed appealing for preserving the privacy of the participants at a first glance, recent studies have shown that collaborative learning can be vulnerable to a variety of privacy attacks. In this paper we propose a novel privacy attack called Community Detection Attack (CDA), which allows an adversary to discover the members of a community based on a set of items of her choice (e.g., discovering users interested in LGBT content). Through experiments on three real recommendation datasets and by using two state-of-the-art recommendation models, we assess the sensitivity of an FL-based recommender system as well as two flavors of Gossip Learning-based recommender systems to CDA. Results show that on all models and all datasets, the FL setting is more vulnerable to CDA than Gossip settings. We further evaluated two off-the-shelf mitigation strategies, namely differential privacy (DP) and a share less policy, which consists in sharing a subset of model parameters. Results show a better privacy-utility trade-off for the share less policy compared to DP especially in the Gossip setting.

Event extraction (EE) is a crucial task aiming at extracting events from texts, which includes two subtasks: event detection (ED) and event argument extraction (EAE). In this paper, we check the reliability of EE evaluations and identify three major pitfalls: (1) The data preprocessing discrepancy makes the evaluation results on the same dataset not directly comparable, but the data preprocessing details are not widely noted and specified in papers. (2) The output space discrepancy of different model paradigms makes different-paradigm EE models lack grounds for comparison and also leads to unclear mapping issues between predictions and annotations. (3) The absence of pipeline evaluation of many EAE-only works makes them hard to be directly compared with EE works and may not well reflect the model performance in real-world pipeline scenarios. We demonstrate the significant influence of these pitfalls through comprehensive meta-analyses of recent papers and empirical experiments. To avoid these pitfalls, we suggest a series of remedies, including specifying data preprocessing, standardizing outputs, and providing pipeline evaluation results. To help implement these remedies, we develop a consistent evaluation framework OMNIEVENT, which can be obtained from https://github.com/THU-KEG/OmniEvent.

Instruction-tuned large language models have revolutionized natural language processing and have shown great potential in applications such as conversational agents. These models, such as GPT-4, can not only master language but also solve complex tasks in areas like mathematics, coding, medicine, and law. Despite their impressive capabilities, there is still a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding their full potential, primarily due to the black-box nature of many models and the absence of holistic evaluation studies. To address these challenges, we present INSTRUCTEVAL, a more comprehensive evaluation suite designed specifically for instruction-tuned large language models. Unlike previous works, our evaluation involves a rigorous assessment of models based on problem-solving, writing ability, and alignment to human values. We take a holistic approach to analyze various factors affecting model performance, including the pretraining foundation, instruction-tuning data, and training methods. Our findings reveal that the quality of instruction data is the most crucial factor in scaling model performance. While open-source models demonstrate impressive writing abilities, there is substantial room for improvement in problem-solving and alignment. We are encouraged by the rapid development of models by the open-source community, but we also highlight the need for rigorous evaluation to support claims made about these models. Through INSTRUCTEVAL, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of instruction-tuned models and advancements in their capabilities. INSTRUCTEVAL is publicly available at https://github.com/declare-lab/instruct-eval.