Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging. Traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks fail to capture the comprehensiveness and nuance of real-world queries, while LLM-as-judge benchmarks suffer from grading biases and limited query quantity. Both of them may also become contaminated over time. User-facing evaluation, such as Chatbot Arena, provides reliable signals but is costly and slow. In this work, we propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard LLM evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks. Based on MixEval, we further build MixEval-Hard, which offers more room for model improvement. Our benchmarks' advantages lie in (1) a 0.96 model ranking correlation with Chatbot Arena arising from the highly impartial query distribution and grading mechanism, (2) fast, cheap, and reproducible execution (6% of the time and cost of MMLU), and (3) dynamic evaluation enabled by the rapid and stable data update pipeline. We provide extensive meta-evaluation and analysis for our and existing LLM benchmarks to deepen the community's understanding of LLM evaluation and guide future research directions.

In recent years, the integration of federated learning (FL) and recommendation systems (RS), known as Federated Recommendation Systems (FRS), has attracted attention for preserving user privacy by keeping private data on client devices. However, FRS faces inherent limitations such as data heterogeneity and scarcity, due to the privacy requirements of FL and the typical data sparsity issues of RSs. Models like ChatGPT are empowered by the concept of transfer learning and self-supervised learning, so they can be easily applied to the downstream tasks after fine-tuning or prompting. These models, so-called Foundation Models (FM), fouce on understanding the human's intent and perform following their designed roles in the specific tasks, which are widely recognized for producing high-quality content in the image and language domains. Thus, the achievements of FMs inspire the design of FRS and suggest a promising research direction: integrating foundation models to address the above limitations. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive review of FRSs with FMs. Specifically, we: 1) summarise the common approaches of current FRSs and FMs; 2) review the challenges posed by FRSs and FMs; 3) discuss potential future research directions; and 4) introduce some common benchmarks and evaluation metrics in the FRS field. We hope that this position paper provides the necessary background and guidance to explore this interesting and emerging topic.

We interviewed twenty professional comedians who perform live shows in front of audiences and who use artificial intelligence in their artistic process as part of 3-hour workshops on ``AI x Comedy'' conducted at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in August 2023 and online. The workshop consisted of a comedy writing session with large language models (LLMs), a human-computer interaction questionnaire to assess the Creativity Support Index of AI as a writing tool, and a focus group interrogating the comedians' motivations for and processes of using AI, as well as their ethical concerns about bias, censorship and copyright. Participants noted that existing moderation strategies used in safety filtering and instruction-tuned LLMs reinforced hegemonic viewpoints by erasing minority groups and their perspectives, and qualified this as a form of censorship. At the same time, most participants felt the LLMs did not succeed as a creativity support tool, by producing bland and biased comedy tropes, akin to ``cruise ship comedy material from the 1950s, but a bit less racist''. Our work extends scholarship about the subtle difference between, one the one hand, harmful speech, and on the other hand, ``offensive'' language as a practice of resistance, satire and ``punching up''. We also interrogate the global value alignment behind such language models, and discuss the importance of community-based value alignment and data ownership to build AI tools that better suit artists' needs.

In the burgeoning field of Large Language Models (LLMs), developing a robust safety mechanism, colloquially known as "safeguards" or "guardrails", has become imperative to ensure the ethical use of LLMs within prescribed boundaries. This article provides a systematic literature review on the current status of this critical mechanism. It discusses its major challenges and how it can be enhanced into a comprehensive mechanism dealing with ethical issues in various contexts. First, the paper elucidates the current landscape of safeguarding mechanisms that major LLM service providers and the open-source community employ. This is followed by the techniques to evaluate, analyze, and enhance some (un)desirable properties that a guardrail might want to enforce, such as hallucinations, fairness, privacy, and so on. Based on them, we review techniques to circumvent these controls (i.e., attacks), to defend the attacks, and to reinforce the guardrails. While the techniques mentioned above represent the current status and the active research trends, we also discuss several challenges that cannot be easily dealt with by the methods and present our vision on how to implement a comprehensive guardrail through the full consideration of multi-disciplinary approach, neural-symbolic method, and systems development lifecycle.

This paper surveys evaluation techniques to enhance the trustworthiness and understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs). As reliance on LLMs grows, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and transparency is crucial. We explore algorithmic methods and metrics to assess LLM performance, identify weaknesses, and guide development towards more trustworthy applications. Key evaluation metrics include Perplexity Measurement, NLP metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore, GLEU, Word Error Rate, Character Error Rate), Zero-Shot and Few-Shot Learning Performance, Transfer Learning Evaluation, Adversarial Testing, and Fairness and Bias Evaluation. We introduce innovative approaches like LLMMaps for stratified evaluation, Benchmarking and Leaderboards for competitive assessment, Stratified Analysis for in-depth understanding, Visualization of Blooms Taxonomy for cognitive level accuracy distribution, Hallucination Score for quantifying inaccuracies, Knowledge Stratification Strategy for hierarchical analysis, and Machine Learning Models for Hierarchy Generation. Human Evaluation is highlighted for capturing nuances that automated metrics may miss. These techniques form a framework for evaluating LLMs, aiming to enhance transparency, guide development, and establish user trust. Future papers will describe metric visualization and demonstrate each approach on practical examples.

Generative AI (GAI) offers unprecedented opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and safety. Many open GAI models lack the necessary components for full understanding and reproducibility, and some use restrictive licenses whilst claiming to be ``open-source''. To address these concerns, we propose the Model Openness Framework (MOF), a ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following principles of open science, open source, open data, and open access. The MOF requires specific components of the model development lifecycle to be included and released under appropriate open licenses. This framework aims to prevent misrepresentation of models claiming to be open, guide researchers and developers in providing all model components under permissive licenses, and help individuals and organizations identify models that can be safely adopted without restrictions. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, the MOF combats ``openwashing'' practices and establishes completeness and openness as primary criteria alongside the core tenets of responsible AI. Wide adoption of the MOF will foster a more open AI ecosystem, benefiting research, innovation, and adoption of state-of-the-art models.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) show impressive results in numerous practical applications, but they lack essential safety features that are common in other areas of computer science, particularly an explicit separation of instructions and data. This makes them vulnerable to manipulations such as indirect prompt injections and generally unsuitable for safety-critical tasks. Surprisingly, there is currently no established definition or benchmark to quantify this phenomenon. In this work, we close this gap by introducing a formal measure for instruction-data separation and an empirical variant that is calculable from a model's outputs. We also present a new dataset, SEP, that allows estimating the measure for real-world models. Our results on various LLMs show that the problem of instruction-data separation is real: all models fail to achieve high separation, and canonical mitigation techniques, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, either fail to substantially improve separation or reduce model utility.

This position paper argues for, and offers, a critical lens through which to examine the current AI frenzy in the landscape architecture profession. In it, the authors propose five archetypes or mental modes that landscape architects might inhabit when thinking about AI. Rather than limiting judgments of AI use to a single axis of acceleration, these archetypes and corresponding narratives exist along a relational spectrum and are permeable, allowing LAs to take on and switch between them according to context. We model these relationships between the archetypes and their contributions to AI advancement using a causal loop diagram (CLD), and with those interactions argue that more nuanced ways of approaching AI might also open new modes of practice in the new digital economy.

Continual Pre-Training (CPT) on Large Language Models (LLMs) has been widely used to expand the model's fundamental understanding of specific downstream domains (e.g., math and code). For the CPT on domain-specific LLMs, one important question is how to choose the optimal mixture ratio between the general-corpus (e.g., Dolma, Slim-pajama) and the downstream domain-corpus. Existing methods usually adopt laborious human efforts by grid-searching on a set of mixture ratios, which require high GPU training consumption costs. Besides, we cannot guarantee the selected ratio is optimal for the specific domain. To address the limitations of existing methods, inspired by the Scaling Law for performance prediction, we propose to investigate the Scaling Law of the Domain-specific Continual Pre-Training (D-CPT Law) to decide the optimal mixture ratio with acceptable training costs for LLMs of different sizes. Specifically, by fitting the D-CPT Law, we can easily predict the general and downstream performance of arbitrary mixture ratios, model sizes, and dataset sizes using small-scale training costs on limited experiments. Moreover, we also extend our standard D-CPT Law on cross-domain settings and propose the Cross-Domain D-CPT Law to predict the D-CPT law of target domains, where very small training costs (about 1% of the normal training costs) are needed for the target domains. Comprehensive experimental results on six downstream domains demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our proposed D-CPT Law and Cross-Domain D-CPT Law.

Decoding language from brain dynamics is an important open direction in the realm of brain-computer interface (BCI), especially considering the rapid growth of large language models. Compared to invasive-based signals which require electrode implantation surgery, non-invasive neural signals (e.g. EEG, MEG) have attracted increasing attention considering their safety and generality. However, the exploration is not adequate in three aspects: 1) previous methods mainly focus on EEG but none of the previous works address this problem on MEG with better signal quality; 2) prior works have predominantly used $``teacher-forcing"$ during generative decoding, which is impractical; 3) prior works are mostly $``BART-based"$ not fully auto-regressive, which performs better in other sequence tasks. In this paper, we explore the brain-to-text translation of MEG signals in a speech-decoding formation. Here we are the first to investigate a cross-attention-based ``whisper" model for generating text directly from MEG signals without teacher forcing. Our model achieves impressive BLEU-1 scores of 60.30 and 52.89 without pretraining $\&$ teacher-forcing on two major datasets ($\textit{GWilliams}$ and $\textit{Schoffelen}$). This paper conducts a comprehensive review to understand how speech decoding formation performs on the neural decoding tasks, including pretraining initialization, training $\&$ evaluation set splitting, augmentation, and scaling law. Code is available at https://github.com/NeuSpeech/NeuSpeech1$.