Analytics on structured data is a mature field with many successful methods.However, most real world data exists in unstructured form, such as images and conversations.We investigate the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to enable unstructured data analytics.In particular, we propose a new Universal Query Engine (UQE) that directly interrogates and draws insights from unstructured data collections.This engine accepts queries in a Universal Query Language (UQL), a dialect of SQL that provides full natural language flexibility in specifying conditions and operators.The new engine leverages the ability of LLMs to conduct analysis of unstructured data, while also allowing us to exploit advances in sampling and optimization techniques to achieve efficient and accurate query execution.In addition, we borrow techniques from classical compiler theory to better orchestrate the workflow between sampling methods and foundation model calls.We demonstrate the efficiency of UQE on data analytics across different modalities, including images, dialogs and reviews, across a range of useful query types, including conditional aggregation, semantic retrieval and abstraction aggregation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically trained to predict in the forward direction of time. However, recent works have shown that prompting these models to look back and critique their own generations can produce useful feedback. Motivated by this, we explore the question of whether LLMs can be empowered to think (predict and score) backwards to provide unsupervised feedback that complements forward LLMs. Towards this, we introduce Time Reversed Language Models (TRLMs), which can score and generate queries when conditioned on responses, effectively functioning in the reverse direction of time. We show empirically (and theoretically in a stylized setting) that time-reversed models can indeed complement forward model predictions when used to score the query given response for re-ranking multiple forward generations.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the field of natural language processing, yet they might be attacked to produce harmful content.Despite efforts to ethically align LLMs, these are often fragile and can be circumvented by jailbreaking attacks through optimized or manual adversarial prompts.To address this, we introduce the Information Bottleneck Protector (IBProtector), a defense mechanism grounded in the information bottleneck principle, and we modify the objective to avoid trivial solutions.The IBProtector selectively compresses and perturbs prompts, facilitated by a lightweight and trainable extractor, preserving only essential information for the target LLMs to respond with the expected answer.Moreover, we further consider a situation where the gradient is not visible to be compatible with any LLM.Our empirical evaluations show that IBProtector outperforms current defense methods in mitigating jailbreak attempts, without overly affecting response quality or inference speed. Its effectiveness and adaptability across various attack methods and target LLMs underscore the potential of IBProtector as a novel, transferable defense that bolsters the security of LLMs without requiring modifications to the underlying models.

Learning from AI feedback (LAIF) is a popular paradigm for improving the instruction-following abilities of powerful pre-trained language models. LAIF first performs supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using demonstrations from a teacher model and then further fine-tunes the model with reinforcement learning (RL) or direct preference optimization (DPO), using feedback from a critic model. While recent popular open-source models have demonstrated substantial improvements in performance from the RL step, in this paper we question whether the complexity of this RL step is truly warranted for AI feedback. We show that the improvements of the RL step are virtually entirely due to the widespread practice of using a weaker teacher model (e.g. GPT-3.5) for SFT data collection than the critic (e.g., GPT-4) used for AI feedback generation.

Large language model (LLM) performance on reasoning problems typically does not generalize out of distribution. Previous work has claimed that this can be mitigated with chain of thought prompting--a method of demonstrating solution procedures--with the intuition that it is possible to in-context teach an LLM an algorithm for solving the problem.This paper presents a case study of chain of thought on problems from Blocksworld, a classical planning domain, and examines the performance of two state-of-the-art LLMs across two axes: generality of examples given in prompt, and complexity of problems queried with each prompt. While our problems are very simple, we only find meaningful performance improvements from chain of thought prompts when those prompts are exceedingly specific to their problem class, and that those improvements quickly deteriorate as the size n of the query-specified stack grows past the size of stacks shown in the examples.We also create scalable variants of three domains commonly studied in previous CoT papers and demonstrate the existence of similar failure modes.Our results hint that, contrary to previous claims in the literature, CoT's performance improvements do not stem from the model learning general algorithmic procedures via demonstrations but depend on carefully engineering highly problem specific prompts. This spotlights drawbacks of chain of thought, especially the sharp tradeoff between possible performance gains and the amount of human labor necessary to generate examples with correct reasoning traces.

The flexible and generalized nature of large language models has allowed for their application in a wide array of language-based domains.Much like their human contemporaries, these models are capable of engaging in discussions and debates as a means of improving answer quality.We first take a theoretical approach to analyzing debate and provide a framework through which debate can be mathematically examined.Building on this framework, we provide several theoretical results for multi-agent debate.In particular, we demonstrate that similar model capabilities, or similar model responses, can result in static debate dynamics where the debate procedure simply converges to the majority opinion. When this majority opinion is the result of a common misconception (ingrained in the models through shared training data) debate is likely to converge to answers associated with that common misconception.Using insights from our theoretical results we then propose three interventions which improve the efficacy of debate. For each intervention, we provide theoretical results demonstrating how debate is improved.We also demonstrate that these interventions result in better performance on four common benchmark tasks.

Users typically engage with LLMs interactively, yet most existing benchmarks evaluate them in a static, single-turn format, posing reliability concerns in interactive scenarios. We identify a key obstacle towards reliability: LLMs are trained to answer any question, even with incomplete context or insufficient knowledge. In this paper, we propose to change the static paradigm to an interactive one, develop systems that proactively ask questions to gather more information and respond reliably, and introduce an benchmark--MEDIQ--to evaluate question-asking ability in LLMs. MEDIQ simulates clinical interactions consisting of a Patient System and an adaptive Expert System; with potentially incomplete initial information, the Expert refrains from making diagnostic decisions when unconfident, and instead elicits missing details via follow-up questions. We provide a pipeline to convert single-turn medical benchmarks into an interactive format.

The ability to compare objects, scenes, or situations is crucial for effective decision-making and problem-solving in everyday life. For instance, comparing the freshness of apples enables better choices during grocery shopping, while comparing sofa designs helps optimize the aesthetics of our living space. Despite its significance, the comparative capability is largely unexplored in artificial general intelligence (AGI). In this paper, we introduce MLLM-CompBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the comparative reasoning capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). MLLM-CompBench mines and pairs images through visually oriented questions covering eight dimensions of relative comparison: visual attribute, existence, state, emotion, temporality, spatiality, quantity, and quality.

Verbal and visual-spatial information processing are two critical subsystems that activate different brain regions and often collaborate together for cognitive reasoning. Despite the rapid advancement of LLM-based reasoning, the mainstream frameworks, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and its variants, primarily focus on the verbal dimension, resulting in limitations in tackling reasoning problems with visual and spatial clues. To bridge the gap, we propose a novel dual-modality reasoning framework called Vision-Augmented Prompting (VAP). Subsequently, VAP formulates a chain of thought in both modalities and iteratively refines the synthesized image. Finally, a conclusive reasoning scheme based on self-alignment is proposed for final result generation.

We introduce ReXTime, a benchmark designed to rigorously test AI models' ability to perform temporal reasoning within video events.Specifically, ReXTime focuses on reasoning across time, i.e. human-like understanding when the question and its corresponding answer occur in different video segments. This form of reasoning, requiring advanced understanding of cause-and-effect relationships across video segments, poses significant challenges to even the frontier multimodal large language models. To facilitate this evaluation, we develop an automated pipeline for generating temporal reasoning question-answer pairs, significantly reducing the need for labor-intensive manual annotations. Our benchmark includes 921 carefully vetted validation samples and 2,143 test samples, each manually curated for accuracy and relevance. Evaluation results show that while frontier large language models outperform academic models, they still lag behind human performance by a significant 14.3\% accuracy gap.