Research has shown the effectiveness of reasoning (e.g., Chain-of-Thought), planning (e.g., SelfAsk), and retrieval augmented generation strategies to improve the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on various tasks, such as question answering. However, using a single fixed strategy to answer different kinds of questions is suboptimal in performance and inefficient in terms of generated output tokens and performed retrievals. In our work, we propose a novel technique DyPlan, to induce a dynamic strategy selection process in LLMs, to improve performance and reduce costs in question-answering. DyPlan incorporates an initial decision step to select the most suitable strategy conditioned on the input question and guides the LLM's response generation accordingly. We extend DyPlan to DyPlan-verify, adding an internal verification and correction process to further enrich the generated answer. Experiments on three prominent multi-hop question answering (MHQA) datasets reveal how DyPlan can improve model performance by 7-13% while reducing the cost by 11-32% relative to the best baseline model.

Robustness audits of deep neural networks (DNN) provide a means to uncover model sensitivities to the challenging real-world imaging conditions that significantly degrade DNN performance in-the-wild. Such conditions are often the result of the compounding of multiple factors inherent to the environment, sensor, or processing pipeline and may lead to complex image distortions that are not easily categorized. When robustness audits are limited to a set of pre-determined imaging effects or distortions, the results cannot be (easily) transferred to real-world conditions where image corruptions may be more complex or nuanced. To address this challenge, we present a new alternative robustness auditing method that uses causal inference to measure DNN sensitivities to the factors of the imaging process that cause complex distortions. Our approach uses causal models to explicitly encode assumptions about the domain-relevant factors and their interactions. Then, through extensive experiments on natural and rendered images across multiple vision tasks, we show that our approach reliably estimates causal effects of each factor on DNN performance using observational domain data. These causal effects directly tie DNN sensitivities to observable properties of the imaging pipeline in the domain of interest towards reducing the risk of unexpected DNN failures when deployed in that domain.

Research into community content moderation often assumes that moderation teams govern with a single, unified voice. However, recent work has found that moderators disagree with one another at modest, but concerning rates. The problem is not the root disagreements themselves. Subjectivity in moderation is unavoidable, and there are clear benefits to including diverse perspectives within a moderation team. Instead, the crux of the issue is that, due to resource constraints, moderation decisions end up being made by individual decision-makers. The result is decision-making that is inconsistent, which is frustrating for community members. To address this, we develop Venire, an ML-backed system for panel review on Reddit. Venire uses a machine learning model trained on log data to identify the cases where moderators are most likely to disagree. Venire fast-tracks these cases for multi-person review. Ideally, Venire allows moderators to surface and resolve disagreements that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. We conduct three studies through which we design and evaluate Venire: a set of formative interviews with moderators, technical evaluations on two datasets, and a think-aloud study in which moderators used Venire to make decisions on real moderation cases. Quantitatively, we demonstrate that Venire is able to improve decision consistency and surface latent disagreements. Qualitatively, we find that Venire helps moderators resolve difficult moderation cases more confidently. Venire represents a novel paradigm for human-AI content moderation, and shifts the conversation from replacing human decision-making to supporting it.

Existing benchmarks often highlight the remarkable performance achieved by state-of-the-art Multimodal Foundation Models (MFMs) in leveraging temporal context for video understanding. However, how well do the models truly perform visual temporal reasoning? Our study of existing benchmarks shows that this capability of MFMs is likely overestimated as many questions can be solved by using a single, few, or out-of-order frames. To systematically examine current visual temporal reasoning tasks, we propose three principles with corresponding metrics: (1) Multi-Frame Gain, (2) Frame Order Sensitivity, and (3) Frame Information Disparity. Following these principles, we introduce TOMATO, Temporal Reasoning Multimodal Evaluation, a novel benchmark crafted to rigorously assess MFMs' temporal reasoning capabilities in video understanding. TOMATO comprises 1,484 carefully curated, human-annotated questions spanning six tasks (i.e., action count, direction, rotation, shape & trend, velocity & frequency, and visual cues), applied to 1,417 videos, including 805 self-recorded and -generated videos, that encompass human-centric, real-world, and simulated scenarios. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals a human-model performance gap of 57.3% with the best-performing model. Moreover, our in-depth analysis uncovers more fundamental limitations beyond this gap in current MFMs. While they can accurately recognize events in isolated frames, they fail to interpret these frames as a continuous sequence. We believe TOMATO will serve as a crucial testbed for evaluating the next-generation MFMs and as a call to the community to develop AI systems capable of comprehending human world dynamics through the video modality.

This paper presents ReasoningRec, a reasoning-based recommendation framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to bridge the gap between recommendations and human-interpretable explanations. In contrast to conventional recommendation systems that rely on implicit user-item interactions, ReasoningRec employs LLMs to model users and items, focusing on preferences, aversions, and explanatory reasoning. The framework utilizes a larger LLM to generate synthetic explanations for user preferences, subsequently used to fine-tune a smaller LLM for enhanced recommendation accuracy and human-interpretable explanation. Our experimental study investigates the impact of reasoning and contextual information on personalized recommendations, revealing that the quality of contextual and personalized data significantly influences the LLM's capacity to generate plausible explanations. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that ReasoningRec surpasses state-of-the-art methods by up to 12.5\% in recommendation prediction while concurrently providing human-intelligible explanations. The code is available here: https://github.com/millenniumbismay/reasoningrec.

We investigate how low-quality AI advisors, lacking quality disclosures, can help spread text-based lies while seeming to help people detect lies. Participants in our experiment discern truth from lies by evaluating transcripts from a game show that mimicked deceptive social media exchanges on topics with objective truths. We find that when relying on low-quality advisors without disclosures, participants' truth-detection rates fall below their own abilities, which recovered once the AI's true effectiveness was revealed. Conversely, high-quality advisor enhances truth detection, regardless of disclosure. We discover that participants' expectations about AI capabilities contribute to their undue reliance on opaque, low-quality advisors.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a promising approach to address the limitations of fixed knowledge in large language models (LLMs). However, current benchmarks for evaluating RAG systems suffer from two key deficiencies: (1) they fail to adequately measure LLMs' capability in handling long-context retrieval due to a lack of datasets that reflect the characteristics of retrieved documents, and (2) they lack a comprehensive evaluation method for assessing LLMs' ability to generate long-form responses that effectively exploits retrieved information. To address these shortcomings, we introduce the Long$^2$RAG benchmark and the Key Point Recall (KPR) metric. Long$^2$RAG comprises 280 questions spanning 10 domains and across 8 question categories, each associated with 5 retrieved documents with an average length of 2,444 words. KPR evaluates the extent to which LLMs incorporate key points extracted from the retrieved documents into their generated responses, providing a more nuanced assessment of their ability to exploit retrieved information.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) addresses key limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated knowledge, by incorporating external databases. These databases typically consult multiple sources to encompass up-to-date and various information. However, standard RAG methods often overlook the heterogeneous source reliability in the multi-source database and retrieve documents solely based on relevance, making them prone to propagating misinformation. To address this, we propose Reliability-Aware RAG (RA-RAG) which estimates the reliability of multiple sources and incorporates this information into both retrieval and aggregation processes. Specifically, it iteratively estimates source reliability and true answers for a set of queries with no labelling. Then, it selectively retrieves relevant documents from a few of reliable sources and aggregates them using weighted majority voting, where the selective retrieval ensures scalability while not compromising the performance. We also introduce a benchmark designed to reflect real-world scenarios with heterogeneous source reliability and demonstrate the effectiveness of RA-RAG compared to a set of baselines.

This research explores the interdisciplinary interaction between psychoanalysis and computer science, suggesting a mutually beneficial exchange. Indeed, psychoanalytic concepts can enrich technological applications involving unconscious, elusive aspects of the human factor, such as social media and other interactive digital platforms. Conversely, computer science, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), can contribute quantitative concepts and methods to psychoanalysis, identifying patterns and emotional cues in human expression. In particular, this research aims to apply computer science methods to establish fundamental relationships between emotions and Lacanian discourses. Such relations are discovered in our approach via empirical investigation and statistical analysis, and are eventually validated in a theoretical (psychoanalytic) way. It is worth noting that, although emotions have been sporadically studied in Lacanian theory, to the best of our knowledge a systematic, detailed investigation of their role is missing. Such fine-grained understanding of the role of emotions can also make the identification of Lacanian discourses more effective and easy in practise. In particular, our methods indicate the emotions with highest differentiation power in terms of corresponding discourses; conversely, we identify for each discourse the most characteristic emotions it admits. As a matter of fact, we develop a method which we call Lacanian Discourse Discovery (LDD), that simplifies (via systematizing) the identification of Lacanian discourses in texts. Although the main contribution of this paper is inherently theoretical (psychoanalytic), it can also facilitate major practical applications in the realm of interactive digital systems. Indeed, our approach can be automated through Artificial Intelligence methods that effectively identify emotions (and corresponding discourses) in texts.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a critical mechanism in contemporary NLP to support Large Language Models(LLMs) in systematically accessing richer factual context. However, the integration of RAG mechanisms brings its inherent challenges, as LLMs need to deal with potentially noisy contexts. Recent studies have shown that LLMs still struggle to critically analyse RAG-based in-context information, a limitation that may lead to incorrect inferences and hallucinations. In this paper, we investigate how to elicit critical reasoning in RAG via contrastive explanations. In particular, we propose Contrastive-RAG (C-RAG), a framework that (i) retrieves relevant documents given a query, (ii) selects and exemplifies relevant passages, and (iii) generates explanations that explicitly contrast the relevance of the passages to (iv) support the final answer. We show the impact of C-RAG building contrastive reasoning demonstrations from LLMs to instruct smaller models for retrieval-augmented tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that C-RAG improves state-of-the-art RAG models while (a) requiring significantly fewer prompts and demonstrations and (b) being robust to perturbations in the retrieved documents.